Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/11/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![74 File:Chœur de l'église de "Le Menoux" Fresque de Carrasco.jpg](#File:Chœur_de_l'église_de_"Le_Menoux"_Fresque_de_Carrasco.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
fairly obvious scan of a print-media item (newspaper/magazine or video of some sort), as Description says DMacks (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
For the moment, I haven't got enough information about it Closa211258 (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
requested by User:Llorenzi: "The image is said to be copyrighted; so I prefer to delet it to do not incor to more problems. Thanks for the deletion" --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Platonides (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
이 파일은 학교 과제를 위해 잠시 올린 것입니다. 삭제해주세요~ 김세라 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
File taken from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2315480078/in/set-72157604057502620 License on Flickr is incompatible with upload to commons. Bob247 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
File taken from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2315475792/in/set-72157604057502620 License on Flickr is incompatible with upload to commons. Bob247 (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
File taken from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2314670737/in/set-72157604057502620/ License on Flickr is incompatible with upload to commons. Bob247 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
File taken from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2315480706/in/set-72157604057502620 License on Flickr is incompatible with upload to commons. Bob247 (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
File taken from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2314671373/in/set-72157604057502620/ License on Flickr is incompatible with upload to commons. Bob247 (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
File taken from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2315486252/in/set-72157604057502620 License on Flickr is incompatible with upload to commons. Bob247 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
File taken from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2315484526/in/set-72157604057502620 License on Flickr is incompatible with upload to commons. Bob247 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Although this file is no longer on Flickr in Luxe Gallery's photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/ It has the same EXIF data as the other files listed above so was probably taken from the same source. COM:PRP. Bob247 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Although this file is no longer on Flickr in Luxe Gallery's photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/ It has the same EXIF data as the other files listed above so was probably taken from the same source. COM:PRP. Bob247 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Found it on Flickr after all: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2315487162/in/photostream Licence is: All Rights Reserved. --Bob247 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
File taken from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24433491@N04/2387999106/in/photostream License on Flickr is incompatible with upload to commons. Bob247 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
je me suis trompée dans les photos Lloret26700 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
je me suis trompée de photo merci Lloret26700 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
je me suis trompée de photo merci Lloret26700 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
je me suis trompée de photo Lloret26700 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
je me suis tro^mpée de photo merci Lloret26700 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
je me suis trompée de photo Lloret26700 (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
je me suis trompée de photo Lloret26700 (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Derived work, no evidence that the creator of the original work died before 1945 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 07:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.andalucia.ccoo.es/webandalucia/menu.do?Informacion:Jornadas_eSindicalismo:Curriculum_de_participantes:7390 - Correcta-informacion (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#France. Architect zh:貝聿銘 is still alive. Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyright owned by someone else Sobocinski (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality image and unused. There is a better alternative:
--Angelus(talk) 02:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Commons no es Facebook Laura Fiorucci (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete perhaps album cover Motopark (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
AU flag is non-free on English Wikipedia, this can't be here. Fry1989 eh? 02:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
This page is a direct representation of an individual working to ruin another mans reputation. There is no reason that a mugshot should be blasted on wiki commons. This page is not appropriate at all and why it was even allowed to be published is a mystery. Please remove this page for it is in no shape or form informational to any of the users.
Deleted: INeverCry 02:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted work EvilFreD overleg 05:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Product structure is incorrect and the reaction itself seems difficult (would need stronger conditions to do solvolysis at alpha position?) DMacks (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No way this reaction would work without substantial addiitonal reagents, even if product structure were correct per its name. DMacks (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a generally viable preparation: gives mixtures of 2- and 3-bromo products (alpha-carbocation is *not* stable like a normal secondary!) DMacks (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
There are too many chemical mistakes to even begin to fix here: both initial reactant structures are incorrect for their name, and a 4-carbon alkyl group would not magically become a three-carbon group during esterification DMacks (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Two nucleophilic groups would not both add to an alkene/ketene...there's a missing redox reagent, or else one of the reagents given is not correct. DMacks (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
first reactant and product are structurally incorrect; reaction would definitely require some unknown other chemical(s) DMacks (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. 72.191.37.46 08:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. 72.191.37.46 08:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I suppose there's a chance this is a self-taken photo of the article's subject in a mirror, but it doesn't look likely. Seems like at least a semi-pro shot for publicity purposes, hence needs permission of the real photographer. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted background image; unclear status of logos (see Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Slovenia); perhaps also copyrighted text. Eleassar (t/p) 08:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
JPEG copy of SVG file File:Triode_tube_schematic.svg Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Should have been Category:CL6 cells. Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of permission from the copyright holder is given and while the file may be PD the licence used is patently incorrect. Nthep (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks suspiciously like a professional publicity shot (from the background), no evidence of permission. -- Trevj (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
May possibly be own work, but a commission by the company for this logo is unlikely to have permitted relicensing by the creator. No evidence of permission. Could be copied locally to en-wp. -- Trevj (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this really a work, created by user Gamesys-swe? I looks more like a screen copy. Stigfinnare (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's a screen copy for an online game. /AleWi (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this really a work by Gamesys-swe? It is a logo of a company. Stigfinnare (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this reaaly a work of Gamesys-swe? It looks like a company logo. Stigfinnare (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from http://www.cuatroarquitectos.com/pc/bd_bacata_of.html 190.25.64.17 12:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
We have a better version of this file and this one is not being used. Rapsar (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The text meets the originality threshold and so isn't in public domain, even if widespread used. Dereckson (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Obsolete .gif diagram with a superior .svg version. Orphan file. Moogsi (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not certain what this is. If it is actually a frame from a movie, then there is no permission. If it is own work, as claimed, then it is out of scope as personal art. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploader claims to be both photographer and subject, so we will need actual photographer's permission. Also, I don't think it is in scope. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
If this is own work as claimed, then it is out of scope personal art. If not, then there is no permission. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 01:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, the source/author isn't clear (not sure whether "Devoge" is the uploader or not) Morning ☼ (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- If this image is deleted, we should also delete the rest of the images from this uploader. DS (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Probable derivative work of copyrighted work. Photo of a painting Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work; supposed 2012 photo of person who died in 1958; no info on actual source photo authorship, license status. Infrogmation (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung, keine Freigabe ersichtlich / Copyvio, no apparent release Steindy (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I was the one who uploaded this from Flickr, and it now occurs to me that I did so in error. The light installation is subject to copyright, and FOP Canada would not apply in this instance as the installation is not permanently installed in a public space (it was a temporary, 6-week exhibit). Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I was the one who uploaded this from Flickr, and it now occurs to me that I did so in error. The light installation is subject to copyright, and FOP Canada would not apply in this instance as the installation is not permanently installed in a public space (it was a temporary, 6-week exhibit). Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This looks like a company's non-free logo. Ralgistalk 18:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this realy a work of user Gamesys-swe? It looks like a screen shot. Stigfinnare (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this realy a work of user Gamesys-swe? It looks like a screen shot. Stigfinnare (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a sculpture by Jorge Carrasco (died 2006) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Jorge Carrasco (died 2006) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
![19:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/11/26#c-Bob247-2012-11-26T19:50:00.000Z-File:Chœur_de_l'église_de_"Le_Menoux"_Fresque_de_Carrasco.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
![02:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/11/26#c-INeverCry-2012-12-03T02:28:00.000Z-File:Chœur_de_l'église_de_"Le_Menoux"_Fresque_de_Carrasco.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative of artwork by Jorge Carrasco (died 2006) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of sculptures by Jorge Carrasco (died 2006) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Chen Zhen (died 2000) in a location with no freedom of panorama (Italy) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Edmond Chrètien (died 1945) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- opposé à la la destruction
Je suis contre la suppression car cette photo est prise dans un domaine public , la statue appartient au domaine public étant située sur le parvis d'église.. De plus La Cour de cassation française a également statué le 5 juin 2003[1], « qu'il n'y a pas de droit du propriétaire sur l'image de son bien ». D'autre part Wikimedia commons et les autres Wiki ne sont pas situés en France la réglementation ne s'applique pas pour exemple Panoramio (Google) a accepté et diffusé ces photos. I am against the removal because this photo was taken in a public domain, the statue in the public domain is located on the forecourt of the church.More The French Supreme Court has also held June 5, 2003 " there is no right of the owner of the image well.On the other hand Wikimedia commons and other Wiki are not located in France the regulations do not apply to such Panoramio (Google) has accepted and distributed these pictures.
Serge ottaviani 26 november 22:08
- Delete Copyrighted 3D art, no FOP in France. ----MGuf (d) 09:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Edmond Chrètien (died 1945) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Edmond Chrètien (died 1945) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Marius Léon Cladel (died 1948) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Marius Léon Cladel (died 1948) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Marius Léon Cladel (died 1948) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Marius Léon Cladel (died 1948) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork by Marius Léon Cladel (died 1948) in a location with no freedom of panorama (France) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the owner. Bob247 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, private picture Narayan (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, image of a non encyclopedic band Narayan (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - private picture Narayan (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of release by Striking Music MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
File was uploaded 11/11/2012. Doing a reverse search (see) i found the same image many times with previous date (for example here 16/10; here 31/10). I think is cviol. 95.250.208.149 21:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence on the dailybeast website that this image is anything but copyrighted "all rights reserved". Chris857 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Following the description Jessica Rinaldi/AP on the website the picture was most likely shot by the Freelance Photographer Jessica Rinaldi and sold to Associated Press, which means indeed that this picture is copyrighted. --Manjel (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Plain and simple copyvio. As her articles are likely to go very high profile on the Wikipedias in the next 24 hours, the image should be removed before then. --LukeSurl (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious copyvio for a picture used on several high-profile Wikipedia articles. Immediate action would be desirable.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. and speedy. COPYVIO --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio as photography work. The subject of this image is a copyrighted poster what configured with copyrighted photographs. Vantey (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Argentina. JuTa 22:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploader says Permission is "Lex Records copyright" but claims to be the copyright holder. No evidence Lex Records released the image under a CC license, probably copyvio. Gump Stump (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploader says Permission is "Lex Records copyright" but claims to be the copyright holder. No evidence Lex Records released the image under a CC license, probably copyvio. Gump Stump (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Uploader says Permission is "Lex Records copyright" but claims to be the copyright holder. No evidence Lex Records released the image under a CC license, probably copyvio. Gump Stump (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
copyvio:Фотография 1949 года не попадает под PD-old-70 ze-dan (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
This part of the path is not situated at the former railroad Beethoven9 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, numbers not as subscripts. Better alternatives in Category:Ketone group. Leyo 22:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, badJPG. Leyo 22:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
photo used for vandalism over at Django Unchained, serves no purpose Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in South Africa, Globe-trotter (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#France, but undelete in January. fr:Hector Guimard died 69 years ago. Stefan4 (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Come on, we keep {{OTRS pending}} tickets longer than this. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
la imagen no es buena Pjmmacarro (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment If image is not good, what about restoring the "01:24, 26 nov 2012" version? / Si la imagen no es buena, ¿restaurar la versión "01:24, 26 nov 2012"? -Aleator (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Kept . Restored the old image SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 10:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
SVG exists in proper ratio, this ratio was chosen arbitrarily. No use. Fry1989 eh? 02:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Wrong ratio, an SVG exists in the proper one. No use. Fry1989 eh? 02:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Wrong ratio, an SVG exists in the proper ratio. No use. Fry1989 eh? 02:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted art works. Eleassar (t/p) 07:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrighted graffiti. Eleassar (t/p) 08:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted information board. Eleassar (t/p) 08:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably copyrightable due to the inscription with an image of the olm (Proteus anguinus) and the design in general. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, there's no Commons-suitable freedom of panorama in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Probably? This is just getting stupid. --Sporti (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- As the inscription "Postojna" was made in Postojna, and the depiction of the olm is a hallmark of Postojna, it can't be de minimis. I think that it is original enough to be copyrightable, due to the font and the depiction. If you disagree, then I kindly ask you to provide some other rationale. "This is just getting stupid" is no argument. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, what we see is a logo. It should therefore be treated in accordance with Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Slovenia, upon which the nominated logos and the subsequently found have been deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
A depiction of a mask from Slovenia; nominated per COM:COSTUME. Eleassar (t/p) 09:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this is a typical traditional Kurent's mask being used for Kurentovanje. --Sporti (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is an individual creation. It is unlike other such masks (see [1]). --Eleassar (t/p) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
spelletjes 84.198.215.77 13:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
it's a mistake ChiaraCarozzi (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Self-request for recently uploaded file. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you kidding ? What is your rationale for copyright violation ? I created this image with my own camera. Please don't cast aspersions. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: COM:AGF, given no prior copyright problems with this user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The e-mail that had been received at OTRS was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. 213.10.17.29 20:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The administrator that saw the OTRS said that the only problem about the OTRS was that it was in Italian language, so he need more time to translate it. Odontocrate (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: COM:OTRS will handle it and take the appropriate action. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. No valid permission has been achieved by OTRS. --Krd 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The uploader is depicted in the image, therefore no permission. Eleassar (t/p) 20:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder, whether a physical act of pressing a button (upon instruction of the uploader) is really a creative process (and therefore something copyrightable). Btw: In general is your induction wrong. The uploader could have also used self-timer. Anyway, in this specific case you are right; even though it is kinda bizzare, as the photo depicts a wiki-meeting, a permission should probably be sent to OTRS. --Miha (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- My induction is not wrong, because the description reads: "na sprožilec je pritisnil ModriDirkac". When it is confirmed by him (through the OTRS or just by voicing his agreement here) that he agrees with the publication in Commons under the specified license, I have no problem keeping this image. In any case, the depicted person can't be the (sole) copyright holder (see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipedysta Matekm.jpeg). --Eleassar (t/p) 11:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Description corrected, photographer ModriDirkac was told to send OTRS verification. — M♦Zaplotnik
my contributions16:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- My induction is not wrong, because the description reads: "na sprožilec je pritisnil ModriDirkac". When it is confirmed by him (through the OTRS or just by voicing his agreement here) that he agrees with the publication in Commons under the specified license, I have no problem keeping this image. In any case, the depicted person can't be the (sole) copyright holder (see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikipedysta Matekm.jpeg). --Eleassar (t/p) 11:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
OTRS permission received, ticket #2012113010012342 Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- The received permission is valid.
I withdraw my nomination. Thank you. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: DR nomination withdrawn. Érico Wouters msg 01:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted design. Eleassar (t/p) 20:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator of this statue would have died before 1945 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 21:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- No evidence he wouldn't have died before 1945. Since when do we have to prove we are innocent? I thought it was to you to prove I was guilty of enforcement... Nevermind, delete, keep deleting, one day, Commons will be empty and clean. Gato76680 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is a discussion about whether images are eligible for Commons or not, not about whether people are innocent or guilty. Per COM:EVIDENCE, the burden of proof is on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Unveiled in 2000; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Modern monument; no evidence that the creator had died before 1945. See COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 21:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator died before 1945; see COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Unveiled in 1938; no evidence that the creator would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 22:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Unveiled in 1952. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Unveiled in 2002 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator of the relief had died before 1945 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 22:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Unveiled in 1997 (no Commons-suitable FOP in Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 22:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Designed in 1977; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep arhitectural elements are de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The portal was clearly the main interest of the photographer. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Designed after 1945; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 23:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Designed after 1945; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 23:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted square arrangement and sculpture in the front; see COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The square is not de minimis and is a copyrightable work. The sculptures are its integral part. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Unveiled in 1968; no appropriate FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep simple pillar with plaques. --Sporti (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- More simple works have been deleted as copyrightable (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:World War II memorials in Slovenia). --Eleassar (t/p) 19:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#Italy. JuTa 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The primary main subject oh the photo is the village and not the "Monumento a Fabrizio De Andre". We can apply also the De minimis (DM) policy. Raoli ✉ (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. If you believe that the "work" is the main subject of this picture, however, you can obscure it such as done here. Raoli ✉ (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I disagree. It looks to me like the monument/sculpture is the main subject in this image. If the village was the subject, it could have been photographed from the corner of the terrace, completely bypassing the sculpture. INeverCry 02:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- As for obscuring the sculpture, that and the terrace rail really get in the way of a good view of the village, so I don't think the image would be worth keeping after the obscuring. INeverCry 02:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Part of the requirement for COM:DM is that the object be difficult to avoid, which it is not in this case. Raoli, as I've said, we don't really create "censored" versions of images here. Most of the existing ones are just to make a point and are not for actual use. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the small monument is de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The monument was clearly the main interest of the photographer and this relief is its most interesting part. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously the central focus of the image. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator of the sculpture had died before 1945 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 22:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the little scuplture is de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The object of interest of the photographer was the plaque, and the sculpture is its integral and distinguishing part. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
photo refusée par l'auteur. 82.123.149.211 17:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Jean-Paul Krassinsky est une personne publique. À ce titre, il convient de chercher le meilleur équilibre entre d'une part la requête de l'auteur, qui déclarerait refuser cette photo (j'utilise le conditionnel car quand bien même la requête est tout à fait plausible, elle n'est pas authentifiée) et d'autre part le droit à l'information. Il s'agit ici de la photographie d'une personne publique dans son activité de promotion dans une manifestation publique. La photo est donc entièrement légitime tant au regard du droit français que des conventions de Wikimedia Commons sur les photographies de personnes vivantes. Dereckson (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Complément : cette photographie est utilisée pour illustrer l'article Wikipédia sur l'auteur. Si la demande de l'auteur est qu'une autre photographie soit placée sur l'article, il lui est tout à fait loisible de nous faire don d'une photographie sous une licence libre (cf. Commons:À propos des licences). Si celle-ci est de qualité équivalente ou supérieure, il n'y aurait alors aucun obstacle pour remplacer la photographie de l'article par la nouvelle photo préférée par l'auteur. --Dereckson (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Merci de bien vouloir remplacer cette photo par l'autre fichier Commons, approuvé par l'auteur. Delepierre (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept Please read the argument above. We keep several images of notable people and we do not allow them to choose.
Please do not nominate this file for deletion again without a different reason. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator of this plaque, unveiled in 1914, would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it's the reproduction of his bishops's seal. --Sporti (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you prove with a source that this is an exact reproduction of a free CoA representation? Otherwise, see Commons:Coats of arms. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it's the only reproduction of his bishops's seal, with life information about bishop, placed on his house of birth. --Shabicht
- Seems to me that this argument makes sense, because he became a bishop in 1889 and he had such a coat of arms since then. I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 19:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to me that this argument makes sense, because he became a bishop in 1889 and he had such a coat of arms since then.
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sax Pub
[edit]Copyrighted graffiti.
Eleassar (t/p) 07:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Statues in Maribor
[edit]Modern statues; per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not eligible for Commons.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 07:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Angeli
[edit]Work by Lučka Koščak (1957-2022); per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 07:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Evandroapiai (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying 14 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different panoramio-/flickr-accounts, blogs etc. + 1x coincidental free Flickr, declared as "own work") it´s difficult to believe that these 4 remaining files (which I couldn´t identify) would be own work. 4 files = 3 different digicam models. IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions and exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
- File:Marco Referencial Geodesico2.jpg
- File:Marco Referencial Geodesico3.jpg
- File:Posto saude apiai.jpg
- File:Hospital Apiai.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
NE individual /out of scope Tekstman (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not in commons scope, identifiable person not in public place -- smial (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Image scanned from a book (Coal Age Galapagos, Calder, 2012) and not uploaded by the original author. Michael C. Rygel 14:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
A miniature of very low quality, improbable to be own work of the uploader as stated. ŠJů (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 01:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ONDA-87 RADIO (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of radio with questionable notability. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 01:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mericiamericia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:FACE 2 FACE-20.JPG
- File:FACE 2 FACE-21.JPG
- File:FACE 2 FACE.JPG
- File:FACE 2 FACE-19.jpg
- File:FACE 2 FACE-17.jpg
- File:FACE 2 FACE-16.JPG
- File:FACE 2 FACE-15.JPG
- File:FACE 2 FACE-14.jpg
- File:FACE 2 FACE-13.JPG
- File:FACE 2 FACE-12.jpg
- File:FACE 2 FACE-11.JPG
- File:FACE 2 FACE-10.JPG
- File:BH-7.jpg
- File:BH-6.jpg
- File:BH-5.jpg
- File:BH-4.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-9.jpg
- File:BH-3.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-8.jpg
- File:BH-1.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-7.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-6.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-5.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-4.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-3.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-2.jpg
- File:FACE2FACE-1.jpg
- File:LAKE VICTORIA-6.jpg
- File:BANGLA HOUSE IN.jpg
- File:BANGLAHOUSE-2.jpg
- File:BANGLAHOUSE-3.jpg
- File:HOTEL ENDIRETA.jpg
- File:LAKE VOCTORIA-5.jpg
- File:LAKE VICTORIA-4.jpg
- File:LAKE VICTORIA-3.jpg
- File:LAKE VICTORIA-2.jpg
- File:LAKE VICTORIA-1.jpg
- File:APELMUSA-UG.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 01:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Texas Journalists (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 000000.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano jpeg 2012.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano00.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano Foto Shoot.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano Foto Shoot 2.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 124578.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 20122.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 7895.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 2013.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 2012.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 0120.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 2012 12.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 1245.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 12 2012.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 001.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 0002.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano 0000.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano jpeg image.JPG
- File:Cesar Gaytan Anguiano jpeg.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano15.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanANGUIANO14.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano8.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano6.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano7.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano4.jpg
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano1.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano2.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano3.JPG
- File:CesarGaytanAnguiano.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:SCOPE. Érico Wouters msg 01:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raulthegreatest (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Boyd.jpg
- File:Jozy Altidore.jpg
- File:Dempsey.jpg
- File:Clint.jpg
- File:Danny Williams Soccer.jpg
- File:Jermaine Jones.jpg
- File:Fabian J.jpg
- File:MIchael Bradley.jpeg
- File:Geoff Cameron.jpg
- File:USMNT.jpg
- File:Juan Agudelo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete; obvious {{Copyvio}}s. Several of the photos have EXIF confirming that they are grabbed from non-free sources (File:Jermaine Jones.jpg: Christof Koepsel/Getty Images; File:Geoff Cameron.jpg: Richard Sellers/Sportsphoto and prominent newscom.com watermark; File:Jozy Altidore.jpg: Karel Delvoye/Orange Pictures/VI Images; File:Boyd.jpg: photoshelter.com). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Érico Wouters msg 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raulthegreatest (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files uploaded by Raulthegreatest are non-free photos grabbed from the Internet.
- File:Tim-Howard.jpg
- File:Fabian Johnson .jpeg
- File:Michael Sheehan Bradley.jpg
- File:Jermaine jones.jpg
- File:Jozy Altidore.jpg
- File:Terrence boyd.jpg
- File:Juan aguedelo.jpg
- File:Clint Dempsey.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raulthegreatest (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: --Steinsplitter (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dakotafan94 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Dakota fanning 15 de Noviembre.jpg
- File:Heather Rae Young.jpg
- File:Dakota Fanning 2012.jpg
- File:Kelsey Shelton Briggs.jpg
- File:Gatos Bebés.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- TinEye results on the kittens make the suspicions heavier. Pitke (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jikker567890 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Massyasr22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]This user has repeatedly uploaded copyvios, either by uploading outright copyvios or by cropping larger images of sportspeople and then uploading the cropped images. All of the images not yet deleted as copyvios fall in the same category of rather small, sometimes very small, images of sportspeople, and I do not believe that they are actually "own work" as claimed. They should be deleted per the precautionary principle.
- File:Daniele De Rossi Trigoria.jpg
- File:Zdenek Zeman Conferenza.PNG
- File:Ivan Piris Trigoria.jpg
- File:Mangiante trigoria.jpg
- File:Osvaldo olimpico.jpg
- File:Viviani trigoria.jpg
- File:Marquinho trigoria.jpg
- File:Pjanic trigoria.jpg
- File:Lamela trigoria.jpg
- File:Lobont trigoria.jpg
- File:Greco trigoria.jpg
- File:Burdisso trigoria.jpg
- File:De rossi trigoria.jpg
- File:Fabio borini trigoria.jpg
- File:Caprari trigoria.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 22:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Massyasr22 (talk · contribs)
[edit]copyvios - more small size pics of pro footballers with no EXIF
- File:Zeman pescara roma.PNG
- File:Pjanic pescara roma.PNG
- File:Piris pescara roma.PNG
- File:Osvaldo pescara roma.PNG
- File:Florenzi pescara roma.PNG
- File:Marquinhos pescara roma.PNG
- File:Bradley pescara roma.PNG
- File:Castan pescara roma.PNG
- File:Balzaretti pescara roma.PNG
- File:BRESSAN.jpg
- File:Marquinhos roma torino.PNG
- File:Marquinhos 2012.PNG
- File:Verratti paris sg.jpg
INeverCry 17:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Érico Wouters msg 01:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Images by Kinderfeld
[edit]- File:Tumblr mcl17yfWD81qehgc3o1 500.jpg
- File:Tumblr m0cguci4VM1qgon9io1 500.jpg
- File:Marilyn-manson-holy-wood-5 (1).jpg
- File:Marilyn Manson Promo 2002 2003 087.jpg
- File:Tumblr m1ip8366MR1rszia8o1 500.jpg
- File:Marilyn-manson-the-golden-age-of-grotesque-51.jpg
- File:Tumblr md17esbPeG1rnbhyuo1 r2 500.jpg
- File:Marilyn-manson-prelude-71-3.jpg
- File:Manson1996.png
- File:Tumblr mdvofhW78C1reepj6o1 500.jpg
- File:Tumblr m750y36Ptu1qlo0kyo1 500.png
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
User has uploaded images of Marilyn Manson from a variety of different Tumblr accounts and other sources, implausibly claiming to be the author of all of them. Many have already been deleted as copyvios; the rest ought to be deleted as well, per Commons:Precautionary principle. --Rrburke (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violations, pt:Marilyn Manson (banda) added to watchlist. --Martin H. (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Products of Slovenia
[edit]Copyrighted design.
- File:Cockta.jpg
- Keep logo is to simple to be copyrighted.
- Per Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Slovenia, the threshold of originality for logos in Slovenia is not known, therefore it has to be assumed that all Slovene logos are copyrighted until proven otherwise. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Eleassar (t/p) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Spominski park Teharje
[edit]Designed by Marko Mušič (still living).
- File:Teharje bodi tu.jpg
- File:Teharje kapelica 1.jpg
- File:Teharje spomenik 1.jpg
- File:Teharje spomenik 2.jpg
- File:Teharje spomenik 3.jpg
- File:Teharje spomenik oltar 1.jpg
- File:Teharje spomenik park.jpg
- File:Teharje vhod 1.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I presume Marko Mušič will agree with the publication of these images. (OTRS) -- PhJ (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator of the relief would have died before 1945 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep if the small bust is not de minimis, it can be cut out. --Sporti (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- No problem keeping a new version with a cut out bust; this one is not de minimis, because the relief is the integral part of the plaque. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done - cropped out the small bust. --Sporti (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now only the previous version needs to be deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Old revision deleted. INeverCry 20:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Unveiled in 1997; no Commons-suitable FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep and cut out the little monument, if it's not de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Upload a new version with a cut out monument, and it will be kept. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Done. --Sporti (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. Then only the original version should be deleted, whereas this one is ok. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Old revision deleted. INeverCry 20:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that the creator of the bust had died before 1945 (see COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep clearly De minimis.
- This is a photo of the birth house of Fran Detela. The hallmark and recognisable elements of this house are Detela's bust and the plaque about him beneath the bust. They have been intentionally included here to identify the building and to provide information about Detela. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can't photograph the front of his birth house without including it. --Sporti (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, but you can photograph it without standing just in front of the bust. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- See Commons:De minimis#Examples #4: "artwork by Escher in the center". --Sporti (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- With #4 example, this is the only way one can depict the front facade of this building; in the discussed case, one could just photograph the building from another angle to make it less visible. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It would also be less visible if the #4 example was taken from the side. --Sporti (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- #4 has been photographed so that the building is clearly visible and the image has been characterised as faded. It was the only way to make a decent photo of that building. This photo has been taken so that the bust and the plaque are in the front, whereas the house is not so clearly visible. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why doesn't the name "Rojstna hiša Frana Detele v Moravčah" clearly show the photographers intent here as it did elsewere? --Sporti (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- One has to consider all relevant facts, not only one (e.g. the title) in determining whether 'de minimis' applies. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Sporti. Yann (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyrightable drawing. Eleassar (t/p) 07:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep To simple to be copyrightable. No creative process involved. --Miha (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- A drawing surely is a creative work. Until you provide some court cases, we can't take seriously claims that this is below the threshold of originality. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Question (drawing is simple, but I would also give its author copyright to it): this is photo of a sign-post in its environment, not just cropped image of a "Copyrightable drawing" as written above. I know that there should be a limit of what is ok and what is not, but here I simply do not see a clear case of copyright violation so I would like to be informed precisely why this photo is not for commons, and in which crop this same motive should be taken for it to be ok for commons. Thanks! SpeedyGonsales (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you rephrase your question please? We agree that it's a copyrightable drawing, it clearly is not 'de minimis' and it's also not some official sign. What's unclear then? --Eleassar (t/p) 10:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, we do not agree it is a copyrightable drawing. It is way too simple and way too common. --Miha (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I made this photo, and i would like something to say. This is "traffic" sign and I took this photo on the public field infront of public parking lot, near Ljubljanske mlekarne in Ljubljana. Close to this sign was a sign for "parking". What would happen if I had accidentally photographed the parking sign, and put it on the Commons, instead of this sign for dogs? Are traffic signs copyrighted also? Or signs for a bus station? --Ex13 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, official traffic signs are not copyrighted, so if you have some photos of them, they're welcome. This sign, however, is not an official traffic sign. Regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please than give some articles from relevant legislation? Because I found something different...--Ex13 (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- For the traffic signs, see [2] (pg. 28) What have you found? --Eleassar (t/p) 22:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
"Po svojem namenu se taka dela ne razlikujejo od uradnih besedil, zato je treba šteti, da tudi zanje velja izjema od avtorskopravnega varstva" (Their purpose, such work does not differ from the official texts, should be considered, subject to the exception to the copyright protection)....as I said, this was in public place and it is sign.--Ex13 (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which works? The official works. Not all signs in a public place are official works. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes this is official sign for that field.--Ex13 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons. Frankly, none of the keep !votes even address this point... FASTILY (TALK) 21:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted posters. Eleassar (t/p) 07:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep clearly De minimis, there is even a similar photo in the Commons:De minimis#Examples. --Sporti (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unlike that image, in this image (titled 'Plakati' - posters), posters were the only thing of interest to the photographer and at least some of them are shown with sufficient clarity, therefore de minimis does not apply. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- It says "a series of photographs exhibited in a museum", here it's a series of posters in the street = same thing. --Sporti (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the same thing. That photo has been claimed de minimis, because one should not have to wait to take photos of the interior of the museum, which is the main object of interest: "it's to show a little bit of the inside of the museum to get a feel for the atmosphere". On the other hand, in this photo, the object of interest is not the street. It's the posters (because the file is titled "election 2011 - posters"). Besides, at least some of the posters are much more clearly visible than that photos. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I see your point. So let's rename the file it's ok? How about "a little bit of the outside of the street.jpg"? --Sporti (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I guess the reply is not needed here. The intent of the photographer has been made clear. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The intent of the photographer was to depict a series of posters (and to get a feel for the election atmosphere). While each poster is copyrighted and de minimis on this photo, the set is not copyrighted as they were just lined randomly. --Sporti (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't get your point. The intent was to photograph the posters specifically of the 2011 election, so how can they be 'de minimis', an unimportant and unavoidable inclusion, then? In contrast, the museum image was determined to have been made to show the interior of the museum no matter what was the casual exhibition about. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your interpretation would clear the Election posters category as there are may similar photos for example at Category:Election posters in France, Category:Election posters in Finland or Category:Election posters and signs in Canada. And there is still a similar case at Commons:De minimis#Examples- --Sporti (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ozouf_Walsh_Routier_election_posters_2008.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Election-posters.jpg){kind=link}
- We can't see these photos, but it's not necceserly the same case as there (for example "photographs occupy substantial proportion of posters, not de minimis"). I still can't see any difference between a "casual exhibition" (= a group of paintings) and this photo (= a group of posters). --Sporti (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is in why the photo was taken in the first place. Per COM:De minimis: "if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." This is also why one does even not have to see the mentioned photos - it's enough to know that they were taken deliberately to show the election posters, in the same manner like this one. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's another one like this in the examples: File:Banners CIMG0256.jpg. --Sporti (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not comparable, as the reason that the image was kept was: "the picture is of the hall as a whole and not a particular banner... the ceiling area of an interesting interior space, and a statue..." --Eleassar (t/p) 11:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- And here without the posters the photo would similarly show street, fence and school. --Sporti (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say this was the intent of the photographer: the street was not the main subject, the fence is just a random element, and the school is hidden behind the trees. Besides, the photographs of the election are much clearly visible. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Definietly not COM:DM FASTILY (TALK) 21:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The licence for the musical notes may to be incorrect. The template lists four possible scenarios:
- It is a work of an institution, enterprise or organization and 50 and years have passed since the date of its publication
The uploader has not provided any evidence that this is a work for hire. Per COM:PRP, we would have to assume that it is not a work for hire unless anyone can prove the opposite.
- It is another kind of work, and 50 years have passed since the year of death of the author (or last-surviving author)
Wrong! The composer, ko:김원균, died in 2002, which is less than 50 years ago.
- It is a "work whose publication, issuance, performance, broadcasting, show and exhibition is prohibited" in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The national anthem of North Korea is presumably performed a lot of times in North Korea, so I doubt that the song is prohibited in the country. Also, I'm wondering if this might be revocable and thus insufficient for Commons. What is illegal at one point might not be illegal at some other point.
- It is one of "Documents for state management [...] unless commercial purpose is pursued"
Non-commercial licences are not permitted on Commons. See {{Noncommercial}} and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-DPRKGov. Also, the "documents for state management" provision mainly appears to be meant for legal documents. It is not clear whether musical notes are covered by the provision.
The URAA date for North Korea is 28 April 2003. It is also necessary to show that the work was in the public domain in North Korea on that date. Otherwise, the musical notes are copyrighted for 95 years since publication in the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: It is a work of an institution, enterprise or organization and 50 and years have passed since the date of its publication. The anthem was published for the DPRK government (which is an institution/organization) in 1947 at the very earliest, and 1947+50=1997. It is now 2013, and the file was uploaded in 2011. Also, the Ogg Vorbis file is a derivative of a MIDI file that was published under the Creative Commons license for the website nationalanthems.info. See FAQ. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide any evidence that the national anthem was produced for an institution? The article w:Aegukka doesn't contain any evidence of this, and lots of national anthems have been produced without being a work for hire. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 10:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that Ivan Podvornik, the creator of this vase, had died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- The picture was digitized during the Europeana 1914-1918 Collection Days event where they invite the public to bring items that belong to them and get them digitized by their experts (i.e. they met the owners and talk to them IRL).
- On the project page you can read the following: "As part of this policy, the Europeana Terms for User Contributions establish that all content that is contributed to Europeana by its users will be made available on Europeana.eu under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license. This means that, when a user posts content on the Europeana.eu website, he irrevocably grants third parties the right to freely use that content, as long as they attribute the work to the author and share alterations of that content under the same conditions."
- and
- "You guarantee that:
- the digital material that you submit is not copyright protected; or
- you own the rights to this digital material; or
- the owner of these rights has authorized you to submit the digital material under the following conditions.
- For the content you contribute (such as a video, a photo, a diary, a picture or audio material), you are allowing everybody to use this content in almost any way they wish. However, they must attribute the content to the rights owner. And if they make alterations to the content, they have to allow others to use the altered content under the same conditions.
- For the descriptive data you submit (such as descriptions or tags) so your content can be found by search engines, you are allowing everybody to use these descriptive data in almost any way they like, without further conditions."
- Hence the material should therefor not be problematic for us to use. John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- This seems like license washing/Flickr. The above quotes only show that the photographer gave his permission to publish the photo under the CC license. However, how was it determined that the vase itself, created by Ivan Podvornik, is not copyrighted anymore if we don't know when he died? If the owner brought this vase to be photographed, it still doesn't mean the owner is the copyright holder. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have sent Europeana 1914-1918 an email about what their procedures are. Cheers, John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Doppelt unter ähnlichem Namen. Bild hatte sich nach dem Hochladen nicht aufgebaut. Pedelecs (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Emblems of the Government of Taiwan
[edit]- File:Emblem of Government-general of Taiwan.svg
- File:Emblem of the Government of Taiwan (under Japanese rule).svg
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Unsourced (i.e. there are no reliable sources which proove that it is indeed an emblem of the colonial government). --Elmor (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can't find the source for File:Emblem of Government-general of Taiwan.svg, but I found a website, and it can be the reliable source for File:Emblem of the Government of Taiwan (under Japanese rule).svg :[6]--Bigmorr ☎ 17:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I found two examples of using the second symbol: 1, 2; though they were marked with "The Library of Government-general". Some databases like 国立国会図書館 or 日治時期圖書全文影像系統 may have other examples. Luuva (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I also found a similar one for the second emblem. The person on the stamp was the 4th Government-general Kotama Gentarou.--Wildcursive (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)