Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2022/07/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No clear copyvio source for this one, I'm only getting what might be Wikipedia mirrors, but all of the user's other uploads have been taken from various web pages without permission. Lord Belbury (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
G2 DS28 (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Julo (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This image belongs to the Russian Ministry of Defense, not own work by uploader (https://moscowseasons.com/news/vosem-geroev-v-mesh-poiavilis-novye-dokumenty-ob-uchastnikakh-velikoi-otechestvennoi-voiny/_ 171.49.168.177 17:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 19:59, 26 July 2022 UTC: Copyright violation. This image belongs to the Russian Ministry of Defense, not own work by uploader (https://moscowseasons.com/news/vosem-geroev-v-mesh-poiavilis-novye-dokumenty-ob-uchastnikakh-velikoi-otechestvennoi-voiny/_ --Krdbot 01:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
duplicate of another file, uploaded by mistake Famartin (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete per {{Db-self}} - unused, uploader requests deletion within a week of uploading. -M.nelson (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
GT Racing 2: The Real Car Experience
editCategorytree featuring all vehicles in i a videogame for Ipads. Known vandal, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/09/Category:GT Racing 2:The Real Car Experience
Anders (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete per COM:CSD#G4. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Not for public domain, exceeds the threshold of originality. StomboyCarGeek (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 09:11, 28 July 2022 UTC: CSD G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus): File:Grand Theft Auto V Logo.svg and File:Logo Grand Theft Auto V.png --Krdbot 01:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Apuedeser27 (talk · contribs)
editSent to speedy without any reason. What is the problem with the photos Hangman'sDeath?
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I think Hangman'sDeath saw this. --Lymantria (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Exactly what Lymantria said. The images either are F1 or F10 --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hangman'sDeath When sending to speedy, we need the web address of what you saw. Otherwise there is no data to support F1 or F10. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: I did, but it didn't show up: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AELY_BEATS.jpg&type=revision&diff=677814267&oldid=677806259 --Hangman'sDeath (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Personal photo, OOS Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Bad photoshop, unused. Liz (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
fantasy diagrams, out of project scope
Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope, private file Xgeorg (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Phúc Ghost TV (talk · contribs)
editPersonal self promotional images that are outside the scope of this project.
Herby talk thyme 10:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iamkingheron (talk · contribs)
editOut of scope. Collection of personal photos.
- File:Xehlig.png
- File:Xehli-Cheer4.jpg
- File:Xehli-Cheer1 2.jpg
- File:Xehli-Cheer3.jpg
- File:Xehli-Cheer1.jpg
- File:XehliG2016.png
Smooth O (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The image doesn't accurately represent the polymeric nature of hyaluronic acid. There are correct, high quality alternatives such as File:Hyaluronan.svg. Marbletan (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
nonsense, uploaded by a vandal Erik Wannee (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
fantasy diagram, out of project scope Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused logo. Lymantria (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hbpandrani (talk · contribs)
editUnused personal photos, out of COM:SCOPE. Photo(s) were used in declied draft en:Draft:Hubdar Brohi.
-M.nelson (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Out-of-focus and without META proving that the uploader is the owner of the photos Pierre cb (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 07:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The current church building began construction in 1992. (source). Therefore, the architecture is unfree. Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines for free uses of copyrighted works in public spaces. Also included here are photos of stained glass art.
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 02.jpg
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 03.jpg — stained glass art*
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 04.jpg — *ditto
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 06.jpg
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 07.jpg — stained glass art*
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 10.jpg — *ditto
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 11.jpg — *ditto
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 12.jpg — *ditto
- File:0436jfBarangay East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Kalayaan Makati Cityfvf 28.jpg — *ditto
- File:0496jfMater Dolorosa Parish East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Makati Cityfvf 05.jpg — *ditto
- File:0496jfMater Dolorosa Parish East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Makati Cityfvf 14.jpg
- File:0496jfMater Dolorosa Parish East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Makati Cityfvf 16.jpg
- File:0496jfMater Dolorosa Parish East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Makati Cityfvf 17.jpg — stained glass art
- File:0496jfMater Dolorosa Parish East Rembo J. P. Rizal Extension Makati Cityfvf 20.jpg
- File:2529Mater Dolorosa Parish Church 10.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete No right of panorama Miniwark (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. No right of panorama and the stained glass art is also likely copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rising Fade (talk · contribs)
editOut of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Stand behind.jpg
- File:Black and white Instruments.jpg
- File:Rising Fade 1.jpg
- File:Band Photo .jpg
- File:Rising Fade Sitting Down.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Out of COM:SCOPE. - FitIndia Talk Mail 23:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rising Fade (talk · contribs)
editSD|F10
- File:Dont Join The Green Parad.jpg
- File:GParade.jpg
- File:Rising Fade 2.jpg
- File:Rising Fade - Band Photo.jpg
- File:Rising Fade.jpg
GeorgHH • talk 14:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 15:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work, many without author information. Source links are non-functional on many. Seems to be a series all from somewhere else, incorrectly licensed.
- File:Geevarghese Mar Koorilose VII Metropolitan.jpg
- File:Kuriakose Mar Koorilose VI metropolitha.jpg
- File:Geevarghese Mar Koorilose V metropolitan.jpg
- File:Joseph Mar Athanasius I metropolitha.jpg
- File:H.G GEEVARGHESE MAR KOORILOSE Metropolitha.jpg
- File:Joseph Mar Koorilose IV metropolitha.jpg
- File:Geevarghese Mar Philexenos II photo.jpg
- File:Mathews Mar Koorilose metropolitha.jpg
- File:Joseph Mar Koorilose metropolitha.jpg
- File:Kattumangattu elaya bhava.jpg
- File:Abraham Mar Koorilos I portrait photo.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated and confirmed sockpuppeting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 16:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in France.
- File:ShelomoSelinger-LaDanse.jpg
- File:RaymondoPuccinelli-Memorialduretourdescendresde Napoleon.jpg
- File:FranceetHughesSiptrott-Leshommesdelacite.jpg
- File:FragmentsdumurdeBerlin.jpg
- File:EdouardFrancois-Chemineevegetale.jpg
- File:Atila-Lesculpteurdenuages.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-12.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-11.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-10.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-09.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-08.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-07.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-06.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-05.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-04.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-03.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-02.jpg
- File:Incrustations-M-01.jpg
- File:Julio Silva Dame Lune.jpg
- File:LesLieuxducorps-LeonardoDelfino.jpg
- File:LaTerre-LouisDerbre.jpg
- File:Danslestracesdenosperes-JosefJankovic.jpg
- File:LaFontainedesCorolles-LouisLeygue.jpg
- File:PointGrowth-LimDong-Lak.jpg
- File:LeSomnambule-HenrideMiller.jpg
- File:LeGrandToscano-IgorMitoraj.jpg
- File:Ikaria-IgorMitoraj.jpg
- File:LesQuatreTetes-EmilyYoung.jpg
- File:LePouce-Cesar.jpg
- File:Letelephone-AndreBarelier.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 17:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Fake license. A mixture of multiple images, historical photos, documents and paintings uploaded as 'Own work'.
- File:ВВ Поляков Холст Зима в деревне.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Холст Вечер на Волге 1954 98х165.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Фото 1980.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Статья Страна Березового ситца 1999г.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Стога.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Соревнования Конно лыжников Фото.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Родители Валентин и Клаудия.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Плоты на Волге.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Натюрморт с капустой.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков На Хахин Голе Фото.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Куйбышевский Союз Художников.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Куйбышевская Набережная.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Конные лыжники.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Водозабор.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Грамота Союза Художников 1967.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков Благодарность Союза Художников.jpg
- File:ВВ Поляков и РА Антонова Свадьба.png
- File:ВВ Поляков Автопортрет Карандаш.jpg
Bilderling (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS permission needed. However, two files might be kept as they are beyond the threshold of originality. --Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Per the copyright notice in the image, this suggests this is not the user's own work. Permission is needed from the author Asatur Yesayants. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Very obvious copyvio from an online newspaper, see file source. Taichi (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The chemical bonding is depicted incorrectly. Specifically, the CH-CH=C-N- group should be CH=CH-C=N- Marbletan (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
All of this contributor's uploads are unused personal photos. I'm not sure how to nominate multiple files at once but if you look at their contributions, you'll find that they are all personal photos. Liz (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal photo by non-contributor/F10. --Wdwd (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Wrong copyright license was selected when uploading the file CAT102 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Question What copyright license should there be, and would it be a problem? This picture is bad, though, sorry. It needs perspective correction, it's small, it's not sharp even as a thumbnail, and some of the colors look off. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The main building here is w:en:Rufino Pacific Tower, completed in 1994. The dark building to the left is w:en:PBCom Tower, completed in 2000 and authored by GF & Partners Architects, in cooperation with international architects Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP. The buildings are recent and there is no freedom of panorama here as of this moment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Philippines#Freedom_of_panorama. --Wdwd (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Saya berubah pikiran, saya tidak ingin itu terlihat publik lagi Rahmatdenas (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Saya berubah pikiran, saya tidak ingin itu terlihat publik lagi Rahmatdenas (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Saya harap awak tidak minta bahwa kami pulaskan semua gambar masjid itu. Sebab apa awak tak nak orang lihat gambar ini lagi? Ini bukan gambar diri awak dan gambar ini (keduanya yang saya sudah lihat awak minta pulaskan) boleh diguna. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment English version: I hope you aren't asking us to delete every picture of that mosque. Why don't you want people to see this picture anymore? It isn't a picture of yourself, and these pictures (the two for which I've seen deletion requests from you) can be used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a registered copyright image and is the property of Daniel M. Larsen with Registration Number VAu 1-404-052. I requested its removal yesterday. That request was honored, but it was immediately re-posted. Please remove it and please don't allow it to be posted again. NambuccaChac (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- This image was made in 1844. It is in the public domain. Jon698 (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep public domain, an owner of a photograph as no copyright rights unless he is the original author. Miniwark (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is probably best resolved by the Wikimedia Foundation and their lawyers. --RAN (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The only way this photograph could be copyrighted is it wasn't published until recently, but that can't be the case because it's a daguerreotype. Since, like a postcard or similar commercial products, the format assumes someone originally published it. I don't think it would qualify as an original work just because it's cropped either. You'd have to enhance the original photograph enough that it's reasonably different from the original and this is a 1/1 reproduction of the original. As a side for that I looked for the copyright registration information on coypright.gov and couldn't find it. I'm not saying the original nominator is lying, but it is kind of weird the image was granted copyright in the first place. If a copyright does exist I'd be interested to know what the reason for granting it was, because it was because of the existence of the locket or some other element of the image that has nothing to do with the actual daguerreotype. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This similar photo of a daguerreotype of Edgar Allan Poe is considered by Wikimedia to be in the public domain, and is even a featured picture, even though it is a digitally edited photograph taken with choice of lighting, angle, etc, and therefore supposedly having significant creative content. According to the US federal court precedent set by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., if "the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity", then it does not qualify for copyright protection.
- I did find the copyright registration at the Copyright Office catalog by searching for "vau001404052", but this does not mean that the claim of copyright ownership is guaranteed.
- It doesn't look like it was removed and then reposted. Someone just replaced the first image on the Joseph Smith article with this higher-resolution JPG. The request to delete the first image is still under discussion. --Jade Ten (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep A work made in 1844 and not published until 2020 is in the public domain in the US. That registration says date of creation 2020; therefore it's not covering this work. Given that date and the fact there is copyright office correspondence attached, and it says "Authorship: photograph", I'm going to assume it doesn't cover the older work, merely the photograph taken of that work including other copyrightable expression.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion (PD-old image). --Wdwd (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate of FileːMountain Biking In Lenzerheide, Switzerland - 29591826245.jpg YitzhakNat (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, add redirection. --Wdwd (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused logo. Lymantria (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image Mann Mann (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-free image Mann Mann (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: claimed own work, but file EXIF shows "Author Hagen Hopkins Copyright holder © Hagen Hopkins Photography 2022". VRT permission from Hagen Hopkins needed. MKFI (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation: image has been published previously in https://appliedsportpsych.org/site/assets/files/1051/2022_cbu_aasp_regional_conference_2022_program_3.pdf (page 7). MKFI (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FoxManCali (talk · contribs)
editScreenshots of a discussions in a Discord for some kind of game. Seems very Out of scope for Commons.
- File:VRChat Steam Review Ratio.jpg
- File:VRC Complaint 2.jpg
- File:VRC Discord Complaint 1.jpg
- File:VRChat Discord Annoucement.jpg
TommyG (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
G2 DS28 (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted, see log. --Wdwd (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This picture is copy from the official website *angys* (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Accuratecy051 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of recently created, unused content/G7. --Wdwd (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
File:President Tirésias Simon Sam during the Inauguration of the new Railway Line in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.jpg
editThis photo is not in the public domain. It is part of my personal collection. Please remove it. Oaurelien (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have created an entry at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#File:President_Tirésias_Simon_Sam_during_the_Inauguration_of_the_new_Railway_Line_in_Port-au-Prince,_Haiti.jpg regarding this request.Zfish118 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, taken in 1897, PD in Haiti and the US. Possession by the nominator of a print of this photo does not imply copyright ownership by the nominator. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is my picture. Again, this is not in the public domain. They got the photo from my personal blog ARTDream which I changed the name to tumblr.blackhaiti.com a few years ago. You can also visit my personal instagram page where I post this photo and many others that are part of my private collection. https://www.instagram.com/orlandooo7/ Oaurelien (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Oaurelien: Who took the photo, 125 years ago? You? How do you own the copyright? Under which law does the copyright persist, and why? Who holds the negative? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is my picture. Again, this is not in the public domain. They got the photo from my personal blog ARTDream which I changed the name to tumblr.blackhaiti.com a few years ago. You can also visit my personal instagram page where I post this photo and many others that are part of my private collection. https://www.instagram.com/orlandooo7/ Oaurelien (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Jeff G. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The public domain status of the image is correct. --RAN (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per User Jeff G. --Wdwd (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This image a non free Grevin artwork. See also uploader history. Miniwark (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: missing permission. --Wdwd (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hele Gautier was still active at last until 1992. So the depicted sculture is non-free. See also uploader history. Miniwark (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no FOP in france. --Wdwd (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This photo appears to be a fake, with Nazar Ghazali's face on a photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger posing in a bodybuilding competition. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Wrong title name Phoenix14061990 (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep and change the name. --RAN (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. @Phoenix14061990: please see COM:RENAME. --Wdwd (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice art, but subject is copyrighted character Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- The character is addressed by COM:FANART, but I think the 'own work' claim doesn't match the circumstances; Delete. Arlo James Barnes 00:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Das Logo war auf einer Seite zum Unternehmen eurolaser eingebunden, die auf Grund mangelnder Relevanz gelöscht wurde. Von daher möchte ich das Logo nun auch löschen und die Freigabe zurückziehen. Eurolaser GmbH (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused logo, out of scope. --Wdwd (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
So this is not a professional promo photo but one that was released under Creative Commons license? Sure. 217.239.9.121 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is a copyright violation from www.yasimen.com. It may be speedy deleted? Nadi2018 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Geoffrey Beling died in 1992, needs OTRS
Gbawden (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DIANAKARENB (talk · contribs)
editAppear to be taken from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DIANAKARENB
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, photos appear to be sourced from one or more of the following without permission:
- — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wrong URL - that was a copy-paste error. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Adeletron 3030: Thanks. What is the right URL? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I meant to say that the images appear to be from the Behance account. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Adeletron 3030: Thanks. What is the right URL? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wrong URL - that was a copy-paste error. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The page claims the file is licensed under CC BY-SA but the source says it's under CC BY-NC-SA.
Edit 1: It's linked on the page, but the source is https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1928-1009-378.
Edit 2: While we're at it, the same issue appears to affect https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Game_of_Ur_04.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Game_of_Ur_08.jpg, and other such uploads by the same user. There are some Ur board pictures which seem to be fine on this front, eg. ones where the picture is taken by the uploader and not the British Museum.
CharredShorthand (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: file EXIF shows "Copyright holder Anugo Osadebe". VRT permission from Anugo Osadebe needed. MKFI (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation: smaller resolution versions are widely published: https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Cao/e/B08S22J5XR/ref=aufs_dp_mata_dsk MKFI (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, permission via COM:VRT needed. --Wdwd (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Metadata credits Chris Roberts and image is previously published at https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/cambridge-chef-tristan-welch-comic-relief-charity-cookalong-7829038 Adeletron 3030 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
This is an old pic and it is not representing this man. It is not used in any page. there is a new better pic: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D7%A9%D7%99_%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F_2019.jpg Ovedc (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- If it is no longer needed - I have no problem with its deletion. Atbannett (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is no good reason to delete an old photo of an individual just because we also have a newer one. I don't understand why so many deletion requests are efforts to eliminate historical records. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JVTECHMUSIC (talk · contribs)
editNot own works: scans of historical and existing photos, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission.
- File:Luz petita Luzardo Villavicencio - Madre de Julio C Villafuerte Luzardo.jpg
- File:Jose E Villafuerte Menedez - Padre de Julio Cesar Villafuerte Luzardo- Retrato.jpg
- File:Jose E Villafuerte Menedez - Padre de Julio Cesar Villafuerte Luzardo with family.jpg
- File:Jose E Villafuerte Menedez.jpg
- File:Jose Eusebio Villafuerte padre del Maestro.jpg
- File:Finca Santa Teresita de la Maravillas.jpg
- File:Madre del Maestro Villafuerte.jpg
- File:Sandra America Velez 2003.jpg
- File:Portrait en 2022.jpg
- File:Con sus hijos en el 2018.jpg
- File:2007-con alcalde de Medellin.jpg
- File:1982-Medalla Camilo Torres.jpg
- File:Maestro Villafuerte y su familia de Medellin en el 2000.jpg
- File:Reunion con Lucho Bowen en el 2000.jpg
- File:Maestro Villafuerte con su esposa Olga Velez en 2000.jpg
- File:Maestro Villafuerte con Lucho Bermudez.jpg
- File:Trio Galantes 1960.jpg
- File:Joven Villafuerte Luzardo en 1950.jpg
- File:Dueto Bowen-Villafuerte en 1950.jpg
- File:Joven Maestro Villafuerte en 1950.jpg
- File:Luz Petita Luzardo Villavicencio.jpg
- File:CASA ABUELO 2022.jpg
- File:CASA ABUELO 1933.jpg
- File:Jose Eusebio Villafuerte Menendez.jpg
- File:Julio Cesar Villafuerte Luzardo en su estudio.jpg
- File:2015- UNDATED.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep the following
editThe list is large and I have only evaluated a few. See: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ecuador Ecuador awards 70 years of protection to anonymous works. 1952 would be the cutoff date with those prior to 1952 that are anonymous, should be kept.
- File:CASA ABUELO 2022.jpg (properly licensed original image) -- not own work but from "Family private collection". Missing all essential info and permission. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- File:CASA ABUELO 1933.jpg (PD by age, 1933)
- File:Joven Villafuerte Luzardo en 1950.jpg (PD by age, 1950)
- File:Dueto Bowen-Villafuerte en 1950.jpg (PD by age, 1950)
- File:Joven Maestro Villafuerte en 1950.jpg (PD by age, 1950)
- File:Jose Eusebio Villafuerte padre del Maestro.jpg (PD by age, 1940)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete the following
editThe list is large and I have only evaluated a few:
- File:Maestro Villafuerte con su esposa Olga Velez en 2000.jpg (studio image)
- File:Sandra America Velez 2003.jpg
- File:Portrait en 2022.jpg
- File:Con sus hijos en el 2018.jpg
- File:2007-con alcalde de Medellin.jpg
- File:1982-Medalla Camilo Torres.jpg
- File:Maestro Villafuerte y su familia de Medellin en el 2000.jpg
- File:Reunion con Lucho Bowen en el 2000.jpg
- File:Maestro Villafuerte con su esposa Olga Velez en 2000.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 13:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
JVTECH MUSIC is a close member (son) of the deceased subject in this biography - Many of these pictures belong to the personal photo album of the family and therefore subject to family copyright if any - these photos do not hold any copyright by anybody outside the composer's family and they do represent added value to the biography of the deceased subject of this article. Therefore, in due time there will be re-instated — Preceding unsigned comment added by JVTECHMUSIC (talk • contribs) 17:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Smaller equivalent to long-existing File:Imidogen radical spacefill.png. The one use-case was already mixed styles, so this higher graphical quality replacement in a slightly different orientation fits well. DMacks (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keep in mind to delete the unused redirect File:Imidogen-radical-3D-vdW.png as well. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete I, Hoa112008, should delete because the quality is not high. I have a lot of new versions of old photos but I can only delete them because they are blocked--1.54.195.204 13:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Hoa112008, user IP address
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The depicted sculptures robots are not attributed and are most probably non free. (Also the uploader have an history to upload non-free image) Miniwark (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: COM:FOP France. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The depicted sculpture robot is not attributed and is most probably non free. (Also the uploader have an history to upload non-free image) Miniwark (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: COM:FOP France. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Derivative work copyright violation: the depicted work is a contemporary building made by W.V. Coscolluela & Associates (source).
Regrettably, House Bill 8620 by former Rep. Wes Gatchalian, amending Republic Act 8293 (IP Code of the Philippines) and containing the freedom of panorama provision for the Philippines, did not pass and the bill died while pending at the House of Representatives upon the end of 18th Congress last month. The universal global rule of securing commercial Creative Commons clearance from the architects, sculptors, or muralists still applies. No assurance if the bill will be resurrected this newly-commenced 19th Congress of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: COM:FOP Philippines. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Google search finds this image all over the internet, including larger at Facebook. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copied from:https://twitter.com/khurram143/status/1445773282175713284.Wallu2 (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Ex President of Sri Lanka, found also at https://otakukart.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/cropped-Gotabaya-Rajapaksa-3.webp, and unlikely to be own work of this uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: Found back in 2012 per https://tineye.com/search/6dda07f1121666c3ed8ee20281100a1fdee25c09?sort=crawl_date&order=asc. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
duplicate of another image I uploaded - this one was in error. Famartin (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per DB-Self. BTW @Famartin: you can request speedy deletion of files that you uploaded within 7 days with {{Db-self}}. Full deletion requests can take much longer to be processed. -M.nelson (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: already done. --𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Accidental duplicate of File:2022-08-30 17 22 17 will rename and categorize soon 104.jpg Famartin (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as requested by uploader shortly after upload. --Rosenzweig τ 12:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tevincameroncarter (talk · contribs)
editWeb images with no useful source info or metadata
Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, quick reverse image search shows both to be copyright violations. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Specifc renewal for N.M/abrdigment :- "DICKENS, CHARLES. Tale of two cities. Abridged and modified by Carolyn Pulcifer Timm. © on pref., introd., illus. & questions; 15Aug29; A12102. Carolyn Pulcifer Timm (A); 4Sep56; R176162." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted through 2024. De728631 (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The original work by Dickens is PD, but this is a derivative work still under copyright. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect license. Uploading user states on Wikipedia user talk that the subject owns the image. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: Previously published here.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Weird shadow effect on the letters, which is also inconsistent with the other diagram details, and large margins. Have File:Imidogen-2D-Lewis.svg as high-quality replacement DMacks (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Eliminated shadow effect on letters and eliminated side bars so as to have a presentation like the svg one. Grasso Luigi (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- No objection to keeping; general sense of chem community seems to be to keep a single high-quality PNG even when there is a SVG. DMacks (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, as the original uploader has corrected the file. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep as there is consensus I think (not sure from where or when) to keep correct PNG, no reason to delete after correction. Wostr (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Replaceable by File:Imidogen radical ball.png, that is larger and has an orienation that matches File:Imidogen radical spacefill.png (alt-style representation of same chemical). This nom'ed image does not match orientation of any Category:Imidogen. That replacement also has reasonable size-differences of the elements, a factual improvement over the nom'ed image. DMacks (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The unused file redirect File:Imidogen-radical-3D-balls.png should get deleted as well. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete yep, seems like a derivative work of other file, with no attention paid to the size of atoms. Wostr (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Files with clearly misleading names
edit- File:Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1792.svg (should be deleted or renamed to "Flag of the Slonim County (1764-92).jpg")
- File:Boicha from Flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1764.svg (should be deleted or renamed to "Boicha from Flag of the Slonim County, 1764.svg")
- File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg (should be deleted or renamed to "Flag of the Slonim County (1764-92).jpg")
This mostly is a request to administrators to rename these files with proper names, but these files can also be deleted if the administrators decide to. The problem is that I requested to rename these files with purposefully misleading names by presenting valid arguments and it was done, however following an absolutely baseless Kazimier Lachnovič's complaint to Richardkiwi's talk page (HERE) these actions were reverted and Richardkiwi refused to analyze this question in detail (HIS STATEMENT), so the dispute is not solved. Please keep in mind that Kazimier Lachnovič is a well-known user with strong anti-Lithuanian attitude and aims (for example, he do not hesitate to call Lithuanians with adjectives such as Samogitian rubbish: 1, 2, 3, etc.). So this Belarusian user certainly is not a trustworthy person in Lithuanian affairs. Moreover, one of the renaming requests was deleted by the uploader Лобачев Владимир himself (HIS EDIT), so administrators intervention is a must. I'm sure that Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев Владимир will continue to present lies in this Lithuanian topic once again, so I will present valid evidence myself to dispel any speculations.
So why these files must be renamed? Because this is not flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is flag of the Slonim County which was a minor, non-important region in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and which is currently located in Belarus. These two Belarusian/Russian users certainly has bad faith aims to distort Lithuanian national symbols and wrongfully replace it with a Belarusian region symbolism. This is a pure trolling. Take a look:
-
Лобачев Владимир's falsified flag of Lithuania, 1792 -
Cropped symbol from the same flag (also by Лобачев Владимир) -
Flag with misleading file name uploaded by Kazimier Lachnovič. Pahonia is one of the names of the Coat of arms of Lithuania. -
Slonim County flag uploaded by another user. These are identical flags with horseman wearing a red shield.
.svg)
.jpg)
The real symbolism and colorism of the Coat of arms of Lithuania has always been the same: white horseman with a blue shield and a golden/grey cross on it. Although, some regions or nobles used different colors and images on the shield, but the state-level coat of arms remained unchanged. Take a look at the development of the Coat of arms of Lithuania throughout the centuries:
-
Flag of Vytautas, 1416 -
Flag of Jogaila, 1416 -
Double Cross of the Jagiellonian dynasty, 1440 -
1492 -
1548 -
1555 -
1550-1609 -
1764-1795 -
Authentic ceremonial (coronation) sword of Stanisław Augustus Poniatowski, who was the last Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland in 1764-1795 -
1793 -
Banner with emblem of November Uprising, 1830-1831 -
Since 1918 following the Act of Independence of Lithuania -
Since 1991 following the Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania -
Authentic coat of arms (with blue shield) on the wall of Wawel Castle in Krakow (one of the primary residences of the rulers of Poland and Lithuania) -
On the wall of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow (the oldest university in Poland) -
Coat of arms of John III Sobieski crowning the royal chapel in Gdańsk -
Banner of the Kingdom of Poland's foot guards, 1697-1763, with state-level symbolism of the Two States of the Commonwealth. -
Authentic coat of arms of Augustus II the Strong, 18th century
,_used_during_the_Council_of_Constance_in_1416.jpg){kind=small}
,_used_during_the_Council_of_Constance_from_1414_to_1418.jpg){kind=small}
,_1440.jpg)
.jpg)
,_1550-1609.jpg)
,_1764-1795.jpg)
.jpg)
,_coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania,_designed_by_Antanas_%C5%BDmuidzinavi%C4%8Dius.jpg)
-POL,_Krak%C3%B3w.jpg)
,_and_Coat_of_arms_of_the_House_of_Wettin,_1697-1763.jpg)
Simply compare 1416 flags with the sword from 1764 or 1918/1991 CoA and you will easily notice that such distorted symbolism of the Coat of arms of Lithuania is a pure trolling by non-Lithuanian users. Here are a few late modifications:
-
CoA of Ліпнішкі (Lipniški) in Belarus, 1792 -
Modified symbols by the Russian Empire (the file was created and uploaded by the same Russian user Лобачев Владимир). Pay attention that the Russian Empire illegally annexed Grand Duchy of Lithuania following the Third Partition of the Commonwealth in 1795, so this is not a correct symbolism of the Lithuanian state. -
Greater Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire. The previous image is nearly at the top of the circle around the eagle. -
Modified symbol by Sanguszko in the late 19th century -
Modified symbol by the House of Golitsyn in the late 19th century -
Coat of arms of the Białystok Voivodeship, 20th century -
CoA of Vitebsk Region in Belarus (modern) -
CoA of Lepiel in Belarus (modern) -
CoA of Mogilev in Belarus (modern) -
CoA of Rechytsa in Belarus (modern)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
So these two Belarusian/Russian users are trying to distort the Coat of arms of Lithuania by masking their actions with nobles/regions symbols or Russian occupants symbolism. Consequently, these files should be renamed according to Criterion #3 (To correct obvious errors in filenames) or deleted. PAY ATTENTION how these two users (Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič) will surely do anything in this discussion to prove that the modern Coat of arms of Lithuania with a blue shield is wrong, despite the vast gallery I provided above which completely proves that the state-level symbolism of the CoA of Lithuania did not change over the centuries and remain the same today as it was back in 1416. Ask yourself: why some non-Lithuanian users are persistently doing everything to modify Lithuanian symbolism instead of accepting the obvious fact and even themselves are censoring the requests to correct obvious errors without allowing the third-party to intervene? That's a pure example of bad faith actions with the primary intention to mislead other users and it is incompatible with the essential Commons:Assume good faith guideline. Please act against this malicious trolling. -- Pofka (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg taken from the book of the famous Belarusian heraldist Anatol Tsitou. The drawing shows the flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1764-92. It served as the basis for the creation of two vector files that are used in Wikipedia. There are no violations of the Wikimedia Commons rules. There are only personal political claims of the nominee. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Лобачев Владимир: Here we go again. Okey, some counter-arguments:
- 1) Many illustrations above proves that it is not state-level flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania due to significant inaccuracies in the coloring and symbolism. It clearly is flag of the Slonim County, but probably really dates to the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or the Russian Empire, so there is no need to falsify its naming and to mislead other users.
- 2) No proof that the author really stated that it is flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. We only have your and your close-friend Kazimier Lachnovič's speculations. After all, seeing evidence I provided above, the author's words might have been wrongly interpreted, so another name of these files could be "Flag of the Slonim County of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1764-92)" (I would not oppose renaming to such a name if the years in brackets will be verified). Technically it might be flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but not state-level and its relation with the Slonim County should be clearly indicated in order to not mislead other users. Remember that we Commons:Assume good faith here. There is one more similar non-state level flag with yellow shield and it is properly named:
-
Trakai Voivodeship flag during the reign of Sigismund III.jpg
- 3) In the English Wikipedia article Anatol Tsitou it is written that "In his first book about the coats of arms of Belarusian towns (1983), Tsitou collected all the known by then urban emblems. It was illustrated by an artist Jauhien Kulik who based this work on medieval seals." (article version as of 23 July 2022) which is another proof that it is some kind of regional flag with regional coat of arms, not state-level flag/coat of arms of Lithuania. This authentic flag of the Slonim County from the 17th century which is kept in the Polish Army Museum in Warsaw clearly show that it is also flag of the Slonim County, but it really might be from the 18th century, so slightly later variant.
- 4) The Lithuanian sources clearly state that: "Maždaug 15 a. pradžioje nusistovėjo herbo spalvos ir kompozicija: raudoname lauke sidabrinis šarvuotas raitelis, virš galvos iškėlęs kalaviją, prie jo kairiojo peties – mėlynas skydas su dvigubu auksiniu kryžiumi" (English: Around at the beginning of the 15th century, the colors and composition of the coat of arms were established: on a red field, a silver armored horseman holding a sword above his head, a blue shield with a double golden cross on his left shoulder; LINK TO THE SOURCE HERE). According to the official website of the Parliament of Lithuania (Seimas): "The colours and design of the coat of arms established themselves at the beginning of the 15th century. Two kinds of metal (gold and silver) and two of the most important medieval colours used in coats of arms, Gul (red) and Azure (blue), were used for the coat of arms. The colour Gul (red) stood for material or earthly values, including human life, courage and readiness to shed blood; Azure (blue) symbolised spiritual values of heaven, the godly wisdom and common sense." (LINK TO THE SOURCE HERE).
- 5) According to all the said arguments and counter-arguments above, what you are doing here is just a bad faith misleading of other users (trolling) and I hope the administrators will evaluate that. These files must be renamed to "Flag of the Slonim County (1764-92)" or "Flag of the Slonim County of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1764-92)", etc. -- Pofka (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Colleague, you have opened a nomination for deleting files. What for here to speak about renaming? Maybe you made a mistake with the nominations? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Лобачев Владимир: Some of the illustrations probably should be deleted as they were created with primary objection to mislead other users, but I will also be satisfied if they will be renamed properly to reflect their belonging to the Slonim County. Since you are single-handedly removing templates for renaming I will not fight an edit warring with you and it's up to the administrators what they will do with these files along with your and your close-friend Kazimier Lachnovič's trolling in Lithuanian affairs. -- Pofka (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Could any administrator, please, explain to user Pofka, that no one will waste time on someone's original research? Moreover, could anyone stop this user from spreading lies like this "for example, he do not hesitate to call Lithuanians with adjectives such as Samogitian rubbish: 1, 2, 3, etc." , when the provided diffs clearly show that I didn't call lt:Lietuviai Samogitian rubbish, this adjective was used for nationalistic (more precise chauvinistic) ideas, that Pofka shares and trying to push in every Wikimedia project. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kazimier Lachnovič: Are you saying that quotes from the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia (25-volume universal Lithuanian-language encyclopedia published by the Science and Encyclopaedia Publishing Institute, which is supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of Lithuania) and the official website of the Parliament of Lithuania (Seimas) about the Coat of arms of Lithuania is an original research? Trolling detected. You are surely wasting other users time with that and that certainly is not Commons:Assume good faith. -- Pofka (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič, this is not Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Guido den Broeder, does it mean that your support an idea that any user can spead any kind of blatant lie (calumny) about any other user in here? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it means that your argument is invalid. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Which argument, that one's original research (moreover, without any sound evidence, e.g. other reliable sources) can't anyhow beat the information from a reliable source? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, it means that your argument is invalid. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Guido den Broeder, does it mean that your support an idea that any user can spead any kind of blatant lie (calumny) about any other user in here? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment User Pofka just admites that they lies here: "for example, he do not hesitate to call Lithuanians with adjectives such as Samogitian rubbish: 1, 2, 3, etc." Can anyone stop this user from spreading calumny? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is you who is using adjective rubbish towards other people based on their nationality, not me (1, 2, 3, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- And once againg: "discussing some rubbish" is clearly not about people. Stop spreading calumny. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is you who is using adjective rubbish towards other people based on their nationality, not me (1, 2, 3, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Name change requests don't merit deletion nominations. Just request the name change on each file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I tried, but it is not possible because a bad faith editor is deleting removal templates himself (see his edit HERE), but they are not able to crash this nomination that easily. I see no point to fight an edit warring with him. Some of these files might violate COM:NOTHOST rule (e.g. this one) because it is just a cropped image from another self-created file, so I see no educational value, especially with a misleading file name. It should be decided by the administrators what they will do with these files and these two users who are actively trolling in Lithuanian affairs. -- Pofka (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I obviously haven't looked deeply into the rights and wrongs of this case, but it seems like a problem for Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: I tried, but it is not possible because a bad faith editor is deleting removal templates himself (see his edit HERE), but they are not able to crash this nomination that easily. I see no point to fight an edit warring with him. Some of these files might violate COM:NOTHOST rule (e.g. this one) because it is just a cropped image from another self-created file, so I see no educational value, especially with a misleading file name. It should be decided by the administrators what they will do with these files and these two users who are actively trolling in Lithuanian affairs. -- Pofka (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Support Pofka has clearly done a lot of research and makes a strong case. Opposing parties have nothing to offer except ad hominems and a single source, a book by a controversial figure which to my knowledge was not peer-reviewed. Such a work can easily contain an error. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- 1) What exact controversial do you find in en:Anatol Tsitou (critics in reliable sources, proved errors etc.)? 2) What exact reasonable do you find in suggestion to remove an image of historical flag File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep All I see is a bunch of ad-hominin attacks towards the uploader by the nominator and the fact that the files are potentially miss-named isn't a justification to delete them on it's own. Also, there's zero consensus that flags with errors or so called "fictional" ones should be deleted. I'm willing to change my vote if an actually valid reason for deletion materializes though, but going by the nominators past nominations they seem to justify things by making a string of hyperbolic and bad faithed claims about the uploaders. So I doubt it will come from them. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Renaming might be a solution to this dispute as well, but one of the uploaders single-handedly blocks such attempts and seek to purposefully continue misleading other users in this essential Lithuanian topic. -- Pofka (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Adamant1 once again please refrain from assumptions of bad faith. Further, for some reason you completely overlooked the evidence provided by nominator, including no less than 28 images supporting their request. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you really believe that several images arbitrary selected from the hundreds of such items are sound evidence? Here are some historical images of the GDL emblem with different colors from what Pofka stated: File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1794).jpg, File:Statut Vialikaha Kniastva Litoŭskaha, Pahonia. Статут Вялікага Княства Літоўскага, Пагоня (1614).jpg, File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1475-99).jpg, File:Vitaŭt Vialiki, Pahonia. Вітаўт Вялікі, Пагоня (XVI).jpg, File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1604).jpg, File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1672) (5).jpg, File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1715).jpg and so on. That's why original researches are not accepted in the Wikipedia. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- "That's why original researches are not accepted in the Wikipedia." Does this look like Wikipedia to you? Commons doesn't have a "no original research" policy because there aren't reliable, published sources to substantiate the accuracy of 99% of the media on here. Personally, I'm sure a good percentage of it is technically "wrong", but it doesn't matter because there's no guideline saying that inaccurate information can't be hosted on Commons. I could really give a crap how Wikipedia does things in the meantime because their different platforms. Please least show enough respect towards that, the deletion process, and other peoples' time to cite actual Commons policies if your going to respond to messages. It's a ridiculously off-topic time sink having to discuss and refute Wikipedia policies when they have zero relevance. It seems like "but, but, but Wikipedia!!" is the only argument people who think the images should be deleted have. In the meantime it's perfectly fine to pick a few images as representative samples. It should go without saying that I'm not going to do an in-depth file by file analysis of hundreds of images just to prove something that is obvious. I can almost guarantee there would just be another strawman for why my perspective isn't valid anyway, like that I only compared 199 of the images when 203 were nominated for deletion. So why would I waste my time? Get real. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are right. According to Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, Commons is not Wikipedia, and files uploaded here do not necessarily need to comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites. That's why all this request is irrelevant and should be closes asap. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Kazimier, it's unclear to me why you are linking to these few images (all uploaded by you). Nobody disputes that similar flags and emblems exist with different colors, only that these would represent the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because you stated that Pofka has clearly done a lot of research and makes a strong case and I just show on example of the emblem colors that this so called "job" is a user's fantasy interpretation of arbitrary selected images. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is because Kazimier Lachnovič wants to continue misleading other users with messed up naming. Pay attention how he completely ignored quotes from two Lithuanian sources which are fully reliable in Lithuanian affairs. There really is nothing wrong to identify that it is flag of the Slonim County, unless under a bad faith you want to distort the official coloring and symbolism of Lithuania. I'm not trying to deny that other versions of non-state level horseman existed when it was used by regions, nobles, etc. However, evidence I provided clearly show that state-level coat of arms of Lithuania always was and still is with a blue shield and other variants should be properly named to describe their relation with something else (e.g. city, voivodeship, noble family, etc.). That is exceptionally easily identified in this case with the provided evidence. By the way, pay attention to the city's wall fragments in these flags (which is never used by state-level CoA). If any changes to the official state-level coat of arm would have been made in any period of Grand Duchy of Lithuania's existence then clearly there could not be identical coloring when we compare ruler's flags from 1416 with a ruler's sword from the second half of the 18th century. -- Pofka (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Just another example of Pofka's misleading interpretation of sources. The mentioned sources don't state that the historical depictions of the GDL CoA had strictly red, white and blue colors, as well as any connection between the colors from File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1764-92).jpg and Słonim Country. The variability of the GDL CoA colors on its historical depictions is a well-known fact even in lt:Lietuva. For example the quote from the article (p. 85) of historian en:Dainius Razauskas "From the beginning of the 15th century, if not earlier, the colors of the coat of arms were also established: a silver-white rider on a red background (the harness later changed its color from blue to golden-yellow)" with a reference to Rimša E. Heraldika: Iš praeities į dabartį. Vilnius, 2004. P. 56-61. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- "That's why original researches are not accepted in the Wikipedia." Does this look like Wikipedia to you? Commons doesn't have a "no original research" policy because there aren't reliable, published sources to substantiate the accuracy of 99% of the media on here. Personally, I'm sure a good percentage of it is technically "wrong", but it doesn't matter because there's no guideline saying that inaccurate information can't be hosted on Commons. I could really give a crap how Wikipedia does things in the meantime because their different platforms. Please least show enough respect towards that, the deletion process, and other peoples' time to cite actual Commons policies if your going to respond to messages. It's a ridiculously off-topic time sink having to discuss and refute Wikipedia policies when they have zero relevance. It seems like "but, but, but Wikipedia!!" is the only argument people who think the images should be deleted have. In the meantime it's perfectly fine to pick a few images as representative samples. It should go without saying that I'm not going to do an in-depth file by file analysis of hundreds of images just to prove something that is obvious. I can almost guarantee there would just be another strawman for why my perspective isn't valid anyway, like that I only compared 199 of the images when 203 were nominated for deletion. So why would I waste my time? Get real. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you really believe that several images arbitrary selected from the hundreds of such items are sound evidence? Here are some historical images of the GDL emblem with different colors from what Pofka stated: File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1794).jpg, File:Statut Vialikaha Kniastva Litoŭskaha, Pahonia. Статут Вялікага Княства Літоўскага, Пагоня (1614).jpg, File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1475-99).jpg, File:Vitaŭt Vialiki, Pahonia. Вітаўт Вялікі, Пагоня (XVI).jpg, File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1604).jpg, File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1672) (5).jpg, File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1715).jpg and so on. That's why original researches are not accepted in the Wikipedia. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Alexander Gvagnini reports that the colors of the district banners are similar to those of the voivodeships, with the only difference being that the district banners were smaller and had only one braid (voivodeships had two braids). Sourse: Z kroniki Sarmacyi europskiej (tr. by M. Paszkowski). — Kraków: Wydawn. Bibliteki Polskiej, 1860.
Here is the real banner from Polish Army Museum. All surviving and reconstructed banners of counties and voivodships had an embroidery with the name.
.jpg)
Why invent something? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Лобачев Владимир: I'm sure you'd agree with me that an illustrated SVG image of something like a flag probably isn't going to be 100% accurate. So where's your standard of accuracy before your willing to call it "invented", or is your standard that Commons should just never host SVG illustrations of flags? Like would you be saying the SVG image should be deleted as invented propaganda if it was 98% accurate? What about 80%? Because people in this discussion can go off about accuracy all they want, but it's a completely worthless standard if there isn't a clear line where something can be inaccurate and still be acceptable. Since most files on here aren't exact 1/1 reproductions of the original images/settings/or whatever. It should go without saying that we can't just nominate every file for deletion that isn't a 100% accurate reproduction of the original. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn’t mean a drawing, but an attempt to name the banner of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (as a well-known Belarusian heraldist said), a banner of a small county (as the nominee decided for some reason). -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- My bad. I thought you were talking about the drawing since your comment referenced the "color" and "embroidery" of the banners. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Almost all of these files are properly named: 1) Slonim County flag; 2) Hrodno flag (Polish: Chorągiew grodzieńska); 3) Vitebsk flag (there is text on the flag Vitepska and the horseman's background is white instead of red as in the state-level CoA coloring; by the way, the Slonim's County flag is hanging near it); 4) Trakai flag (there is text on the flag Trocka); 5) Trakai flag again (properly named). So most of these flags are properly named to identify their affiliation with cities/voivodeships. You continue to defend yourself under a "well-known Belarusian heraldist", but: 1) you do not provide any evidence that he really said that about the uploaded flag; 2) these allegedly Soviet-era non-Lithuanian heraldist statements about the CoA of Lithuania contradict fully reliable Lithuanian sources which I quoted. Why fight against properly renaming these flags here? Only bad faith to mislead other users, nothing else. -- Pofka (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn’t mean a drawing, but an attempt to name the banner of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (as a well-known Belarusian heraldist said), a banner of a small county (as the nominee decided for some reason). -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pofka is not quite right that Pahonia always appeared with the Double Cross on a blue background, sometimes the background was white, sometimes red, etc. as can be seen, for example, here File:Pahonia. Пагоня (1555) (2).jpg. Anatol Tsitou is generally regarded as a trustworthy historian, although of course he is sometimes criticized, as any researcher would be. However, back to the topic at hand here. Лобачев Владимир erroneously referred to this flag as the flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as Anatol Tsitou in his book refers to it as: the military flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 1764-1792, and under that name it should be transferred. Marcelus (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes this is true. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- See also Coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Pohonia) from Gate of Dawn. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- You provided an artistic work (HERE) which does not reflect the state-level symbolism of the state-level CoA of Lithuania (same as this artistic work). If the state-level CoA would have modifications in 1555 then the blue shield would not be used again in the later years and centuries, but it was used and frequently. I provided reliable Lithuanian sources and photos of the flag/CoA which confirm that this is the flag from the Slonim County as it has identical coloring (shield with a red background and red cloth on the horse). By the way, you also speculate with your own words like Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič about what the author allegedly said. Provide an online link to the book so we all could check what is actually written or stop speculating like these two. Moreover, you also admitted even yourself that Anatol Tsitou is a criticized author, so mistakes in Lithuanian affairs are likely as he is an outdated Soviet-era non-Lithuanian author. With all the evidence provided, its relation with the Slonim County must be mentioned in the file naming. Slonim had its own military units (see: this online source; in the last paragraph of the page 69 there is a text "Čia buvo palikta DB pėst. (shortened Lithuanian word - pėstininkų) regimento komanda, vadovaujama pulkininko leitenanto Volano. Vėliau 1765 m. rugpjūčio 9 d. įsakymu komanda buvo grąžinta į Slonimą, jos vietą užėmė senoji Slucko įgula." (English: "A team (or crew) of the DB infantry regiment was left here, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Volan. Later, on the order of August 9, 1765, the team/crew was returned to Slonim, its place was taken by the old team/crew of Sluck."). So name "Flag of the Slonim military unit of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1764-92)" is a suitable name candidate (I would not oppose that).
- Horseman on the Gate of Dawn reflects Vilnius, not CoA of Lithuania. The exact period of coloring is unclear either as the Vilna Governorate also used a modified horseman which was different from the CoA of Lithuania. -- Pofka (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- "With all the evidence provided, its relation with the Slonim County must be mentioned in the file naming." No original research. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Horseman on the Gate of Dawn reflects Vilnius, not CoA of Lithuania." See Coat of arms of Vilnius. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- "You provided an artistic work (HERE) which does not reflect the state-level symbolism of the state-level CoA of Lithuania". This coat of arms hung in residence of the Polish king. It's like saying now that the President of Poland has the coat of arms of the country with the wrong colors hanging in his office. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pofka the background of the double cross was usually blue, but there were times when red or white was used. This is less relevant. The file is definitely misnamed. Anatol Tsitou calls it by a different name, saying that it is a military flag. In my opinion, given the presence of the three towers there, it is rather the ensign of the Princes Czartoryski or Sanguszko, who used such a coat of arms. In any case, this is the first time I have encountered such a thing and one should refrain from publishing it on Wikipedia until we have established for sure what it represents.Marcelus (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Wawel Castle has at least three horsemen with a blue shield on the exterior (on one of the towers, above the main entrance to the castle near the cathedral and in one of the balconies in the Grand Courtyard), while the Warsaw Royal Castle has at least one in the Grand Courtyard. The Royal Palace in Vilnius has one blue shield above the main entrance. The rest are colorless (without paint or of one color, for example, golden). Moreover, the blue shield is almost always depicted on various glasses, plates and other items used by the rulers. The red shield was never used in the state-level CoA (even in artistic works like tapestries). Currently, we have valid evidence that it is related with the Slonim County flag as another example is nearly identical to it. So these files should be renamed to include words "Flag of the Slonim military unit" or "Flag of the Slonim County" and if in the future there will be valid examples that it is related with one of the noble families - the community will have the ability to discuss this question again.
- Лобачев Владимир, you are trying so hard to mislead other users that you lost yourself: 1) There is no red shield in this tapestry, so it is not related with the discussed Slonim's flag which has a red shield, not red cross; 2) do not mislead other users if you don't know how the historical CoA of the Vilnius Voivodeship looked like until 1795. -- Pofka (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Лобачев Владимир, you are trying so hard to mislead other users that you lost yourself. It looks to me like your the one whos lost themselves. You haven't even been able to keep to a coherent argument from one message to the next. Let since this you opened this. When this whole thing started your story was that Лобачев Владимир flags were intentionally made up disinformation, after that fell through the flags were just different because certain sources aren't reliable, now it's that the exact period of coloring is unclear. Next you'll be going off that the whole thing is malicious trolling because Лобачев Владимир's designs use royal blue when the originals were colored navy blue or some nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I found a similar image of the banner in the manuscript of the Polish collector Bolesław Starzyński, unfortunately, he did not provide any detailed information about where he copied the banner, where it was located (my guess is Kraków or Lviv). Лобачев Владимир are you able to tell where Anatol Tsitou got his image of the coat of arms from? Is it possible that he copied it from Starzyński? A very similar image of the coat of arms can be found on the great Lithuanian coat of arms of Stanisław August from 1764.
Note the three towers under the horse's feet, of course we can only guess the colors. Judging by the colors alone, I would say that the flag is the banner of a unit from the Minsk voivodeship. Marcelus (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Anatol Tsitou didn't say anything about the source of the image. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- The banner of the Minsk Voivodeship had a different color.
Original-pl: Województwo mińskie pogonię także nosi w białem polu, chorągiew sama jest cielista, o dwu końcach. Powiaty ma dwa: mozerski i kęczycki, które także mają chorągiew swą o jednym końcu. (Kronika Marcina Bielskiego, Том 1, 1856 — S. 13:)
-- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Translation: The Minsk Voivodeship also carries a pursuit in a white field, the banner itself is flesh-colored, with two ends. It consists of two counties: Mozierski and Kenczycki, which also have their own flag at one end.
-
Slonim County flag
.jpg)
acetamide2.png){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
acetamide2.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
acetamide2.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
acetamide2.png){kind=link}
acetamide2.png){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(5).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
- There simply is no other variant with a red shield. -- Pofka (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- The powiats of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had banners with one end. On the banners of the powiats, they never depicted a castle under a horse. And the territorial affiliation was always written on the banners of the poviats. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- These are your own baseless speculations. The Lithuanian flags had various forms (e.g. these two flags of Trakai Voivodeship: 1, 2 are fully square, but this one has two fins in the back, however it also belongs to Trakai). The colors clearly show to whom this flag belongs to and it is Slonim County of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It is nothing else than your desperate attempts (trolling) to deny 600+ years old coloring tradition of the state-level Coat of arms of Lithuania. It is clear that you will do and say anything to achieve these bad faith aims, so I will not continue replying to your trolling here and will simplify the task for the administrators to read all of this. Knowing topics such as the Muscovite–Lithuanian Wars and Partitions of the Commonwealth, it is not surprising that a Russian user is performing trolling in a Lithuanian topic. Topic ban in Lithuanian affairs might teach him a lesson to stop bad faith trolling. -- Pofka (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- These are personal fantasies. And here is how the banner of the Slonim povet describes Alexander Guagnini (Z kroniki Sarmacyi europskiej, 1860 — P. 171):
Original-pl: WOJEWÓDZTWO NOWOGRODZKIE. <...>. Chorągiew o dwu rogach, maści czerwonej, taż co i wielk. ks. litew.: mąż zbrojny na koniu białym z mieczem. Powiaty dwa w sobie zamyka, słonimski i wołkowiski. Słonim <...>. Chorągwie czerwonej wielk. ks. litew. o jednym rogu używa.
--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Translation: NOWOGRÓDEK VOIVODESHIP. <...>. The banner of two horns, red color, [the coat of arms is depicted on it] is the same as that of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: a husband in armor on a white horse with a sword. There are two counties, Slonimsky and Volkovsky. Slonim <...>. The banner uses the red [like that of] the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, with one horn.
- A characteristic feature was the designation of the povet or voivodeship coat of arms along with the territorial name of the banner. Source: Karol Łopatecki Organizacja, prawo i dyscyplina w polskim i litewskim pospolitym ruszeniu (do połowy XVII wieku), 2018, P. 496. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- These are your own baseless speculations. The Lithuanian flags had various forms (e.g. these two flags of Trakai Voivodeship: 1, 2 are fully square, but this one has two fins in the back, however it also belongs to Trakai). The colors clearly show to whom this flag belongs to and it is Slonim County of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It is nothing else than your desperate attempts (trolling) to deny 600+ years old coloring tradition of the state-level Coat of arms of Lithuania. It is clear that you will do and say anything to achieve these bad faith aims, so I will not continue replying to your trolling here and will simplify the task for the administrators to read all of this. Knowing topics such as the Muscovite–Lithuanian Wars and Partitions of the Commonwealth, it is not surprising that a Russian user is performing trolling in a Lithuanian topic. Topic ban in Lithuanian affairs might teach him a lesson to stop bad faith trolling. -- Pofka (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- The powiats of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had banners with one end. On the banners of the powiats, they never depicted a castle under a horse. And the territorial affiliation was always written on the banners of the poviats. -- Лобачев Владимир (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- There simply is no other variant with a red shield. -- Pofka (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment User Лобачев Владимир recently uploaded three images of the Coat of arms of Lithuania and in the files descriptions he described two of them as "Russian coat of arms" (see: 1, 2) and in the third (see: 3) he described it as "Principality of Lithuania and Russia" (use translator for this one). We all know that Russia is a state which counts its history only since the second half of the 16th century (see: Tsardom of Russia) and Muscovy (present-day Russia) is not equal and not related to Ruthenia (present-day Belarus and Ukraine). Moreover, he removed absolutely valid data that these images depicts the Coat of arms of Lithuania (see: 1, 2, 3, as well as 4, 5, 6), despite the fact that such title is used in the English Wikipedia's article about this symbol. This is a perfect proof what kind of propaganda troll user Лобачев Владимир really is and that his actions are far, far from the neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- Pofka (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Files renamed. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. I am the photographer that took this image and uploaded it to 500px under a licence. However 500px has removed this licence without my consent or knowledge and I have since withdrawn permission for 500px to use it. I'm asking you to remove this image as I have not released it under the Creative Commons Licence and it is therefore an infringement of my copyright as the person who took the picture. Thank you. WolfieUK90 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
- "I am the photographer that took this image" this is a statement very hard to attest to.
- "I'm asking you to remove this image as I have not released it under the Creative Commons Licence" this is even harder, as we have the opposite proof, as the time was imported from the 500px there was a cc-by license. Once one work is released under a cc license it cannot be revoked.
- And why is it so important to you to delete the file? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 02:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I have explained; 500px removed the licence without my consent or knowledge. I did not authorise the image to be released under the creative commons licence and I was not told back when I posted it up there that this would happen. I have the original CR2 (RAW) file of this image which contains the original metadata and is unedited. I don't mind sharing this with you privately for verification, as long as it's not edited, altered and/or redistributed. That should be proof enough that I am the photographer that took this image, surely.
- Also the reason I am asking for it's removal is pretty self evident by what I've stated. Furthermore the copyright information contains a link to a website that is NSFW. WolfieUK90 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, if you have the raw, the it's probably easier to directly contact and administrator for this. Miniwark (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, how do I go about this? WolfieUK90 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please contact support team via email.--Wdwd (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you. WolfieUK90 (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- Please contact support team via email.--Wdwd (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, how do I go about this? WolfieUK90 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, if you have the raw, the it's probably easier to directly contact and administrator for this. Miniwark (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Ticket:2022080710000403 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 13:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
- VRT agent (verify): we've received Ticket:2022080710000403 with the raw file of File:A Fly On The Wall (214629233).jpeg. I've verify the identity and I think the user is trustworthy. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- VRT agent (verify): I can also confirm that we have received the raw image of the same fly and that the metadata appears to be consistent with it being a legitimate photograph. In other words, the raw file looks legit, and I'm inclined to believe that this file was uploaded to Wikipedia based upon the existence of an invalid license that was issued by someone other than the copyright holder. Furthermore, even if the artist did upload the work and accidentally labeled it a CC-BY-SA, the validity of a creative commons license would be highly questionable. As such, I believe that we should Delete this file from Commons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
The depicted sculpture is not attibuted and probably non-free. See also user history. Miniwark (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The depicted sculpture is not attibuted and probably non-free. See also user history. Miniwark (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The depicted sculpture is probably non-free. See also user history. Miniwark (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The depicted sculptures are not attibuted and probably non-free. See also user history. Miniwark (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Barna Gacsi is still alive, so this sculpure is most probably non-free. See also uploader history. Miniwark (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The depicted image, inside the image is most probably non-free. Miniwark (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Bria Bari is still alive, so this image depict a non-free sculture. See also uploader history. Miniwark (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Thi image a non free Grevin artwork. See also uploader history. Miniwark (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This image a non free Grevin artwork. See also uploader history. Miniwark (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This Foto was published without agreement of Irene Dingel. We have already asked the photographor twice to delet it. Leibniz-Institut für Europäische Geschichte (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: We rarely delete images at the request of the subject, particularly when they are widely used, as this is. We never delete them at the request of third parties since the third party may or may not be acting at the subject's instructions. Ms Dingel herslef may request deletion using VRT, but it is unlikely to happen unless she furnishes a good replacement. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Je ne pense pas que Jablagu détienne les droits de cette affiche (à moins que cette affiche ne contient que des éléments dans le domaine public?). Aussi, on peut voir un genre de logo (un tatouage numérique?) en bas de l'affiche. Sété40 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Per [2] the photographer is Howard Coster (1885-1959), non-free in the UK until after 2029, undelete in 2030. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Specfic renewal for abridgment : " DICKENS, CHARLES. A tale of two cities, edited by Evelina Oakley Wigglns. With illus. by Norman Rice. (Golden key series) © on added material by Evelina Oakley Wiggins; 27Mar30; A21597. Evelina Oakley Wlggins (A); 26Aug57; R198030." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [3]. Yann (talk) 09:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is the uploader’s own work. It was uploaded from the artist's website. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
There are two problems with this image. First it appears to be cut from another photo and second it has a very obvious cartoon by Michael Alig on the chest of the tee shirt. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- I took the original photo at his art event. I did cut out Esther Haynes who was in the photo . The cartoon is one of Michael Alig's Zombies art creation and from his clothing line. I can submit the original with Esther on it. MissHollywoodNYC (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- We need permission for the tee-shirt image from Mr. Alig's heirs, or it needs to be blanked out. We'd also need a larger, highquality full image with both people, followed by a cropped image. Neither one can show the tee-shirt art due to Mr. Alig no longer being around to give COM:OTRS permission. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on these images, no or no-useful metadata. Subjects are variable: one logo, one drawing and two photos.
- File:Flag of Malankara Orthodox Church.jpg
- File:Thiurmeini's dayara photo white color.jpg
- File:Thirumeni with the dog who obeyed him.jpg
- File:Pampady-Thirumeni-234x300.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated. Reason to believe editor is a sockpuppet, as discussed here on English Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Modern album cover that was copied from a YouTube channel. So likely copyvio unless the uploader can prove otherwise. Adamant1 (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Modern album cover that's likely not the uploaders own work. So copyvio. Adamant1 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's my album art cover. I have the copyrights. Thank you.
- É a arte do meu álbum. Eu tenho os direitos. Obrigado. Felipesting (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK. It would be extremely helpful if you could email the Commons:Volunteer Response Team with the evidence that you own the copyright. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - needs a free license using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure this was properly released under CC-0, since it wasn't uploaded by the photographer. Please could someone have a look at it? Mike Peel (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- The photo is from Bland-Hawthorn's private collection, and it was taken by a family member. There is no danger for copyright infringement here. 120.18.218.95 06:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- The photo is from Bland-Hawthorn's private collection, and it was taken by a family member. It was given to me by him. There is no danger for copyright infringement here. Ttepperg (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - We need a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Photo of an advertisment poster which is presumably copyrighted. Freedom of Panorama in Spain only applies to "works permanently located"; ads are temporary by nature. -M.nelson (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be sourced from a different Flickr photo [4] which is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA (Non-Commercial not allowed in Commons per COM:L). The listed Flickr source [5] is indeed tagged CC0, but isn't the same photo. -M.nelson (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Old version GoneDoge! (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: already deleted by Yann. --Rosenzweig τ 10:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No source is given for the (poorly edited in) background, which I suspect is not the uploader's original work, so this is likely violating the copyright in that work. SixTwoEight (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Lymantria (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it is Blurry Victuallers (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 22:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Search on Google, this image is literally all over the internet. Nothing to indicate own work of uploader, it's a restricted location, famous subject. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy delete may be copied from here:[6].Wallu2 (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:Singer K S Chithra was receiving Padma Shri, The Fourth Highest Civilian Honor of India from the President of India in the year 2005.jpg
edit
Likely not own work: visual characteristics suggest screengrab. Unreliable uploader, many previous DR's. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo of existing photo, missing essential info: original author, source, date, and permission. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 07:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Brazilian group Minas at Café Déjà vu, Cameron Village Underground, Raleigh, NC, 12 May 1979, photo by Joseph Thomas News & Observer Collection, State Archives of North Carolina. IMAGE COPYRIGHT (17197280564).jpg
edit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image was published after 1977 with a copyright notice, so it is still copyrighted in the US. Not free to use. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There is no source given for the 3D model of the teapot. It might be derived from the 1975 Utah Teapot Model, but I don't see any own work on thiis image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 14:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Inverted Commons:De minimis. The Nouvelle Aquitaine logo is copyrighted, the subject of the photograph is the sticker. Overall, the photo mostly shows a copyrighted work. VateGV ◦ taper la discut’ ◦ 12:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Areté Ateneo Panorama.jpg.
- File:909Ateneo Art Gallery University 41.jpg
- File:909Ateneo Art Gallery University 42.jpg
- File:909Ateneo Art Gallery University 43.jpg
- File:909Ateneo Art Gallery University 44.jpg
- File:909Ateneo Art Gallery University 45.jpg
- File:909Ateneo Art Gallery University 46.jpg
- File:909Ateneo Art Gallery University 48.jpg
- File:909Ateneo Art Gallery University 49.jpg
- File:958Ateneo Art Gallery University 02.jpg
- File:958Ateneo Art Gallery University 03.jpg
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Sehr viel Fleisch, keine wissenschaftliche Verwendung. Lots of meat, no scientific value. Sciencia58 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep how many other images do we have showing the erectile process while wearing a cock ring? Dronebogus (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Regardless, the file is of very poor quality and has no scientific value. There are many other files on Commons that are similar in nature and can be used in lieu of this file. In addition, I am asking for this file to be deleted as a courtesy deletion and would like the illustration removed completely. WikiFan (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I am still seeking, per personal request and per original nomination, that this file be deleted as a courtesy deletion since it falls outside of the Commons scope due to it not being realistically purposeful nor having scientific value or purpose. The reasons for a courtesy deletion are valid and legitimate, and I continue to kindly request to have this file removed completely as a courtesy by an administrator. There are many other similar files on Wikimedia Commons that can be used in lieu of this file that are much more scientifically purposeful. No significant loss of information will be experienced through this file’s removal. Thank you. WikiFan (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleting collage. Deleting Category:Middle-aged men with cock rings también. Como saben la edad de nadie mirando su pene?! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 191.126.188.174 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Speedy delete I am seeking, per personal request, to have this file deleted as a courtesy deletion or speedy deletion. The file is of low quality and falls outside of the Wikimedia Commons scope since it does not have a realistic educational purpose nor have scientific value or purpose. There are other higher quality files on the same subject that Wikimedia Commons holds that can be used instead of this file and there would be very minimal loss of information if this file were to be removed as a courtesy deletion. In order to avoid any confusion, I am the nominator and the uploader of the file. I do believe I have a well-reasoned request for a courtesy and/or speedy deletion and am hoping an administrator will grant this request. Thank you for any help WikiFan (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Of obvious educational value and uploaded too long ago for automatic courtesy deletion. Why would you think this is outside the broad scope of human knowledge encompassed by Wiki projects? Also note the previous deletion nomination, closed on July 15. Are you going to nominate this again in 2 weeks when it's kept again? And speedy yet! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ikan, I understand your point. However, aside from the reasons listed above, I am requesting that this file be removed due to personal reasons and misleading information and/or usage. I am not sure how else to go about requesting removal/deletion other than nominating again. I greatly apologize if the speedy delete seems redundant. As stated previously, I am hoping that an understanding administrator will see this and remove this file. I truly believe little or no information will be lost from Commons if the file is to be removed. If there is another way that I can request removal, would you be so kind (or anyone else for that matter) inform me of another removal request process on Commons? I want to request removal appropriately and this is the only way that I know how to do it. Thank you. WikiFan (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question You say "little or no information will be lost from Commons if the file is to be removed." Can you link any comparable file or series of files that nearly as clearly shows the process of putting a penis ring onto a penis? If the personal reasons are because you uploaded this file in 2017, I'm sympathetic to your thinking better of it, but I don't think there's any personally identifiable information in these photos, no-one knows who you are, and it's useful, so in spite of my sympathy for you, I would advise the admin who eventually considers this case not to do a courtesy deletion. However, if the subject is not you, then your personal reasons are completely irrelevant. I'm sorry if that sounds callous, but you agreed to the terms of the Copyleft license when you uploaded the photo (if you are indeed the uploader, which is not at all obvious), and at least you didn't include your face; think about people who actually act in porno films and then want them withdrawn from the market. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek
Speedy keep We went through this nonsense earlier in July, as you note, but also in February and in 2017. Brianjd (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Information not accurate with very little educational value. Quality of Image also very low and grainy in appearance. Delete and remove. 131.150.66.34 12:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- see previous discussions, it is looking fine Keep ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 20:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: as before. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The YouTube channel is not the original creator of the file. Copyvio. Nanahuatl (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also no source for DW\. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Peka Mimosa
editOn the 25th MichJimenez uploads File:Peka Mimosa por Michael Jiménez.jpg, the German politician MiguelAlanCS tags it as missing permission. Then on the 26th Juaaan1990 uploads Peka Mimosa.jpg, which is a transfer from a brand new Flickr account. This artist doesn't link to this Flickr account on their other platforms. The second photo was done for a campaign by "Beauty Drag", reasonable to assume that campaign bought the copyright.
Vera (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ticket:2022080110008952 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 01:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: already. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Logo of a website based in the UK (according to en:Draft:CryptoSlate) which exceeds COM:TOO UK. -M.nelson (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why should this be deleted?
This is the logo for an article in draft 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC) copied from talk -M.nelson (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)- @0xCryptoDegen: The logo is copyrighted by its creator. If its creator wishes to license it under a free license, they should contact COM:VRT. Otherwise, if the copyrighted logo is needed for a Wikipedia page, it might be uploaded directly to Wikipedia (not Commons) as fair use (see COM:Fair use#"Fair use" allowed on some Wikimedia projects). -M.nelson (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Logo of a YouTube channel [7], not the uploader's own work. Might exceed COM:TOO but likely also out of COM:SCOPE. -M.nelson (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:The News & Observer
editThis image was published after 1977 with a copyright notice, so it is still copyrighted in the US. Not free to use.
- File:Fans showing up at The Pier to hear music, Cameron Village Underground, Raleigh, NC, 10 December 1980. News & Observer Collection, State Archives of North Carolina. IMAGE COPYRIGHT OWNED BY THE (17199412743).jpg
- File:Fans showing up at The Pier to hear music, Cameron Village Underground, Raleigh, NC, 10 December 1980. News & Observer Collection, State Archives of North Carolina. IMAGE COPYRIGHT OWNED BY THE (17633534309).jpg
- File:Fans showing up at The Pier to hear music, Cameron Village Underground, Raleigh, NC, 10 December 1980. News & Observer Collection, State Archives of North Carolina. IMAGE COPYRIGHT OWNED BY THE (17819766455).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878693067).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878693735).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878694287).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878694781).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878695215).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878697107).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878697303).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878698657).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878699109).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878699825).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878700253).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878700509).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878700913).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8878701105).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879312852).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879313022).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879313364).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879314238).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879314760).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879315140).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879316694).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879317622).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879318044).jpg
- File:Hargett Street Disco Grocery, Raleigh, NC, 25 April 1979. COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER. (8879318436).jpg
- File:NO 102159 charlotte NFL Fr25 (24570298821).jpg
- File:NO 102159 charlotte NFL Fr26 (24284757209).jpg
- File:NO 102159 charlotte NFL Fr27 (24024355564).jpg
- File:NO 102159 charlotte NFL Fr28a (24544119932).jpg
- File:NO 102159 charlotte NFL Fr8a (24024355634).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
De728631 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Contradictory statements but only one represents a legally binding license statement via Flickr Commons. Listed at Flickr as "No known copyright restrictions" by the State Archives of North Carolina yet we still have "COPYRIGHT RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER. ILLEGAL TO USE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE N&O NEWSPAPER" as text in the file name. The Wikimedia Foundation lawyers should decide which statement represents a legally binding contract, a license statement or text in the name of the file. --RAN (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): thank you for looking into this. Though, I have a question; if the newspaper confirms it's okay to use, there is no need for legal advise I guess? Lotje (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright called into question at Village Pump; I'll detail in further comments. Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Begin copied from Commons:Village pump
File:St_Helena_with_Extreme_E_livery_(2020).jpg is NOT CC licensed. Both the original uploader and User:FlickreviewR 2 have, unfortunately, violated Das Boot 160's copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.192.150.87 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Looks like Flickr user Das Boot 160 initially handled the licensing selection wrong on Flickr, and later corrected it, but it also looks like even originally they seem to have written "© All rights are reserved, please do not use my photos without my permission" so the original situation was self-contradictory. I imagine in the circumstances deletion is the right thing to do, but it's not completely obvious, especially because the image is in use. I'll start a deletion review. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
End copied from Commons:Village pump
- I am original uploader of the image. I contacted "Das Boot" on flickr and ask them whether it would be ok to use this image on Wikipedia. They agreed and temporarily changed the copyright so the automated upload would work. Here is the message from Das Boot from 18 November 2020: "Looking good, no problem with the download, anybody who knows what that are doing can and do anyway. I only copyright them because shipping companies are the worst for taking your photos and using them without credit. Thanks for asking, that is always appreciated, and I'm looking forward to when this even starts. My photos of St Helena have been used by both Lairds & Wilson Ship Management as the are the operators of St Helena. Take Care and god luck with the page." Wild8oar (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Per Wild8oar's clarification. Ved havet (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Info I have added the {{Change-of-license}}template to the file. Ved havet (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)- Thanks! Wild8oar (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- You wrote, "I contacted "Das Boot" on flickr and ask them whether it would be ok to use this image on Wikipedia. They agreed and temporarily changed the copyright so the automated upload would work."
so, "... temporarily changed the copyright..." implies that this copyright change will revert back to the original copyright after a period of time. Is that correct?
The creator was quoted, in part - "I only copyright them because shipping companies are the worst for taking your photos and using them without credit." Did this photographer change their mind about shipping companies using photos and the need for copyright protection?
Also, should a ORTS ticket be requested from the photographer?
Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)- Per COM:Revoke, the licenses we allow on Commons ({{Cc-by-2.0}} in this case) are non-revokable. The photographer can choose to stop distributing their photo under that license, but that doesn't stop others (i.e. Commons) from distributing it under the terms of the initial license. Also, given WildBoar's explanation above, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that the file was published under cc-by-2.0 at one point in time, so VRT (OTRS) confirmation should not be necessary. -M.nelson (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Per WildBoar's comment above, the uploader and FlickreviewR 2 were accurate at the time of upload. This license is non-revokable. -M.nelson (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unvalid licence Malvoört (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. --Rosenzweig τ 08:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Functional rule extraction method for artificial neural networks (latest revision - July 24, 2022).pdf
editIt's conflict with copyright laws. Calebnwokocha (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --Didym (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This file's licensing is wrong Kurmanbek (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question If you know what kind of license it should have, could you edit the file accordingly? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: DW. --Didym (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There's no way this is a selfie ("own work"). This is a professional promo photo if there ever was one. Creative Commons licensing more than doubtful. 217.239.9.121 19:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Suspicious photo and also no EXIF data, might screenshot from copyright video *angys* (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Suspicious photo and also no EXIF data, screenshot from copyright video (left below got link) *angys* (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Suspicious photo and also no EXIF data, might screenshot from copyright video *angys* (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
No specifc renewal found, but I can't find any information concerning D.M.Walmsley, who may have been active until at least 1957 (journal article in History Today), and may have been UK based. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This work was published in the United States; U.K. copyright is not relevant. The work was not renewed, so it is in the public domain in the United States. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Kept: The publisher D. C. Heath and Company is located in Boston, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, Dallas, London, so this is a simultaneous US and UK publication. The editor D(onald) M(unro) Walmsley lived 1893 to 1981 in the London area per UK records found with Ancestry, so his works (like the texts in this volume written by him) are still protected in the UK. Per the Berne Convention, the source country for a simultaneous publication is the country with the legislation that provides the shortest copyright term. Even with the full 95 year term (if this had been renewed) until the end of 2025, this would be the US, compared to the UK's 70 years pma term until the end of 2051. So the source country for our purposes is the US, and we can keep this with PD-US-not renewed. --Rosenzweig τ 01:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Redundant with the svg version of the map existing, and doesn't actually follow the UN Geoscheme for Europe. Vesperius (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion, G7. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Image taken from a 2013 website, author unknown. No suggestion this drawing was first published before 1927, it may be from a more recent book, or possibly even drawn for the website itself. Lord Belbury (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete it's actually a hoax. Praxidicae (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- It was certainly uploaded to illustrate a hoax article on enwiki with a false statement in the original description, but I don't see a reason to doubt the toaster.org source site, which doesn't mention MacMasters. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Possibly in PD, but it is not clear when this illustration has been published. Archived source does not mention it. https://web.archive.org/web/20130110132740/http://www.toaster.org/1900.php . Therefore the image must be deleted. --Ellywa (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Specifc renewal in respect of abridgment : "ELIOT, GEORGE, pseud. Silas Marner, the weaver of Raveloe, edited by Evaline Harrington. With illus. by Frank T. Merrill. (Golden key series) © on added material by Evaline Harrington; 27Mar30; A21598. Evaline Harrington (A); 26Aug57; R198031." ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This work was not properly renewed. The work gives “D. C. Heath and Company” as the copyright proprietor, but the renewal was made in the name of “Evaline Harrington.” As she did not own the copyright, she had no legal right to renew the work; and this work was thus not properly renewed, it entered the public domain at the end of the 28-year term. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Restore in 2026. The author of a work generally has right to renew the work, except when it's a work for hire. Given the lack of information, I think we have to assume the renewal valid.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Prosfilaes: What do you mean, “[g]iven the lack of information”? The copyright notice is a clear indication that this is a work for hire. A company cannot write a work, and the book’s author is given as the same Harrington. Thus, it is clear that Harrington wrote the book as a work for hire for Heath and Company. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- They can pay someone to write a work for them or buy the copyright for a work and register it as copyright proprietor without it being a work for hire.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- It appears to be an error on the end of the renewal: the renewal notice only states “© on added material by Evaline Harrington,” but the original notice recognizes “© Mar. 27, 1930; 2c. Apr. 7; aff. Apr. 5; A 21598; D. C. Heath & co.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- What error? She's renewing what she has a right to renew. The illustrator would have his own chance to renew his own contribution, which may or may not be filed elsewhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- The original copyright notice—and the notice published in the CCE—would state all of the copyright claims in the work; otherwise, there would be no copyright. The copyright notice is in the name of the company, for the work done by Harrington. This is not a case where there are two separate copyrights, e.g. one for text and one for illustrations; the only copyright is for Harrington’s editing, and that copyright is held by the company. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. That's just not how this works. Contrast that with the Jaws decision that basically says if the notice had said (c) 1977 Doubleday, that would have covered the book cover, despite that being clearly separate from the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The problem in the Jaws decision was that there was no copyright notice (with a valid copyright claimant) for the cover art, because the copyright notice specified the author of the text. In this case, the copyright notice is specific (to the added material, because the company did not own the copyright to the original), and it also clearly states that the company owns the copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- What I mean is that "(c) 1977 Doubleday" would have been fine whereas "(c) 1977 The author of the book" was not, because the author of the book didn't license the right to the cover. The Jaws decision also mentions in passing that a copyright notice in the name of someone who licensed the work but doesn't own the copyright will preserve a copyright. In any case, a renewal is not the right of the person who owns the copyright; it's primarily the right of the author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- “In any case, a renewal is not the right of the person who owns the copyright; it's primarily the right of the author.” Not true; a renewal acts upon the copyright, and is thus the duty of the proprietor of the copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- True, it's anyone who has a copyright interest (license etc.). But, copyright assignments would revert back to the author or heirs after 28 years, unless it was a work for hire. Book authors are almost never works for hire -- the copyright registration usually specifies work for hire if it is. The definition of "work for hire" is pretty narrow; it generally refers to only actual employees. See Work for hire#Law in the United States. A book authorship contract which assigns copyright is not a a work for hire. It might promise to transfer the renewal copyright too, but that promise is void if the author dies before the renewal is actually filed, and the copyright reverts to the author's heirs (or estate or whoever gets it in the will). If such promise was not in the original contract, then the rights reverted automatically. As such, it was usually the author or their heirs which had the only right to renew many types of works, even if the original registration was in the name of the company who was assigned the initial copyright. The law has changed for post-1964 renewals; the heirs would actually have to claim renewal to get the copyright back, rather than it being automatic. See Circular 15. The case Stewart v. Abend was over just this sort of reverted right (and a derivative work question as well). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- “In any case, a renewal is not the right of the person who owns the copyright; it's primarily the right of the author.” Not true; a renewal acts upon the copyright, and is thus the duty of the proprietor of the copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- What I mean is that "(c) 1977 Doubleday" would have been fine whereas "(c) 1977 The author of the book" was not, because the author of the book didn't license the right to the cover. The Jaws decision also mentions in passing that a copyright notice in the name of someone who licensed the work but doesn't own the copyright will preserve a copyright. In any case, a renewal is not the right of the person who owns the copyright; it's primarily the right of the author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- What do you mean? The problem in the Jaws decision was that there was no copyright notice (with a valid copyright claimant) for the cover art, because the copyright notice specified the author of the text. In this case, the copyright notice is specific (to the added material, because the company did not own the copyright to the original), and it also clearly states that the company owns the copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nope. That's just not how this works. Contrast that with the Jaws decision that basically says if the notice had said (c) 1977 Doubleday, that would have covered the book cover, despite that being clearly separate from the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- The original copyright notice—and the notice published in the CCE—would state all of the copyright claims in the work; otherwise, there would be no copyright. The copyright notice is in the name of the company, for the work done by Harrington. This is not a case where there are two separate copyrights, e.g. one for text and one for illustrations; the only copyright is for Harrington’s editing, and that copyright is held by the company. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- What error? She's renewing what she has a right to renew. The illustrator would have his own chance to renew his own contribution, which may or may not be filed elsewhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- It appears to be an error on the end of the renewal: the renewal notice only states “© on added material by Evaline Harrington,” but the original notice recognizes “© Mar. 27, 1930; 2c. Apr. 7; aff. Apr. 5; A 21598; D. C. Heath & co.” TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- They can pay someone to write a work for them or buy the copyright for a work and register it as copyright proprietor without it being a work for hire.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- Prosfilaes: What do you mean, “[g]iven the lack of information”? The copyright notice is a clear indication that this is a work for hire. A company cannot write a work, and the book’s author is given as the same Harrington. Thus, it is clear that Harrington wrote the book as a work for hire for Heath and Company. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: As per the discussion: The parts of this book written by the editor are still under copyright. As the copyright to those parts most likely automatically reverted to her, she had the right to renew the copyright and did so. The copyright lasts until the end of 2025, so the file can be restored in 2026. --Rosenzweig τ 07:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)