Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/06/05

Was testing the width Sakib (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<nowik>{{Delete</nowiki< |reason=Copyright violation. See original at: https://www.nationalbanken.dk/C1256B730054214F/sysOakGraphic/25-øre/$File/25.gif |subpage=File:25-ore coin.gif |day=5 |month=June |year=2013 }} Pompilos (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. See original: https://www.nationalbanken.dk/C1256B730054214F/sysOakGraphic/25-øre/$File/25.gif --Pompilos (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image about non-notable person Taivo (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completing an incomplete DR. The original reason is "demande de l'auteur, blason inutile" ("request of the author, useless shield") Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete It was really requested by an author 12 days and 10 minutes after original upload. I think that in this case we can delete. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User claims it is own work, but there's no metadata unlike most of his uploaded images. Wizardman 16:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User claims it is own work, but unlikely given his other images, plus no metadata. A shame since it's a very nice pic. Wizardman 16:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is a promotional image for the television program. Author is ARY KAPLAN NAKAMURA (in EXIF data), and not the uploader's "own work" as claimed. This is a non-free file. Senator2029 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo is a promotional image for the television program. Author is ARY KAPLAN NAKAMURA (in EXIF data), and not the uploader's "own work" as claimed. This is a non-free file. Senator2029 16:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this relief is free. Per the Yugoslav law (Article 4) "folk literature and folk art creations, documents, court decisions ... [are] by itself not a protected author's work." I don't think the relief belongs to any of these categories. In addition, the photograph was taken in Slovenia, and the work is also outside the categories of free works specified in the Slovenian copyright act (Article 9). Eleassar ^(t/p) 17:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, File:Red zaslug za ljudstvo s srebrno zvezdo.JPG. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, copyright violation. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hezbollah Bandera.jpg. dariusz woźniak (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No free licence. "Permission on request" is not enough for Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, unused, possible trademark Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Unused textlogo of non-notable company (no menmtion in en.wiki). Taivo (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, unused, possible trademark Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, unused, looks like a trademark Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues: 1) Not free of copyright as it was already published at http://breathecast.christianpost.com/articles/hawk-nelson-photos-6770/photo1 2) Bad precedent for Wikicommons to be used for publicity purposes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Wappen at dorfgastein.png
• File:Wappen at dorfbeuern.png
• File:Wappen at dienten.png
• File:Wappen at bruck an der grossglocknerstrasse.png
• File:Wappen at bramberg.png
• File:Wappen at berndorf.png
• File:Wappen at bergheim.png
• File:Wappen at bad hofgastein.png
• File:Wappen at anthering.png
• File:Wappen at annaberg.png
• File:Wappen at anif.png
• File:Wappen at adnet.png
• File:Wappen at abtenau.png

No licence. This affects a number of these heraldic images. They need to be discussed now, and if their author is still active and can be contacted, then we can preserve these clearly useful images. Otherwise we are unfortunately required to delete them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we apply {{PD-simple}} to all of these? (And many others). The real creativity is in the heraldic blazon (the detailed text description of the arms), which is separately already agreed to be PD. Although drawing some of these heraldic arms requires more or less creative effort that others, it is always the case that the blazon fully describes the depiction of the arms. Even if one drawing is more or less skilful than another, such variation would be considered as a trivial variation in rendering, not as a creative endeavour. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I am able to reproduce none of them, so none is simple. And, really, none has licence. Taivo (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan ^(talk) 02:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private picture of user, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Includes logo of the band. I can't find where this is taken from, but propably a non free file. Stryn (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sfs90 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo that belongs to GyM Ferrovías, it can't be considered as PD-text. The text "todos los derechos reservados" ("all rights reserved") confirms the copyright over the image and the ineligibility to be hosted at Commons |source=http://www.lineauno.pe/ INeverCry 23:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I am not able to reproduce the green thing, so not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan ^(talk) 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sfs90 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo that belongs to GyM Ferrovías, it can't be considered as PD-text. The text "todos los derechos reservados" ("all rights reserved") confirms the copyright over the image and the ineligibility to be hosted at Commons |source=http://www.lineauno.pe/ INeverCry 23:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I am not able to reproduce the green thing, so not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan ^(talk) 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sfs90 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo that belongs to GyM Ferrovías, it can't be considered as PD-text. The text "todos los derechos reservados" ("all rights reserved") confirms the copyright over the image and the ineligibility to be hosted at Commons |source=http://www.lineauno.pe/ INeverCry 23:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I am not able to reproduce the green thing, so not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan ^(talk) 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Sfs90 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo that belongs to GyM Ferrovías, it can't be considered as PD-text. The text "todos los derechos reservados" ("all rights reserved") confirms the copyright over the image and the ineligibility to be hosted at Commons |source=http://www.lineauno.pe/ INeverCry 23:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I am not able to reproduce the green thing, so not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Alan ^(talk) 02:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is by John Lewis High Wycombe who is not the flickr account owner, David Howard. While it would require COM:OTRS permission by Mr. Wycombe, this is a minor image and perhaps it should be deleted. Leoboudv (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. I think this is just a language mistake. While the Flickr title/description is indeed "by John Lewis High Wycombe", I think the author is most definitely David Howard. In England, John Lewis is not just a name it is also a department store. Given the fact High Wycombe is a town and the (uncropped source) Flickr image is of a stretch of motorway, and given it's been tagged with High Wycombe & Bucks (Buckinghamshire), I'd suggest this was supposed to indicate the photo was taken near/next to (as in by) the John Lewis store in High Wycombe, rather than having been taken by someone other than David Howard (which if you look at the rest of the stream would be very unusual if not unique). And if you look at Google Maps, the John Lewis store in High Wycombe is indeed right next to this particular part of motorway (Junction 4 of the M40). Ultra7 (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: I think the uploader's comments is reasonable. I'll pass the image but let the closing Admin decide this DR issue as this flickr account is reliable. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I believe all, what Ultra7 said. The licence is correct. But nevertheless, this is tiny blurry image, not used and I would say unusable. For example, what is written on bus? I cannot see. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: COM:PS. Per Taivo Alan ^(talk) 02:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark, in use or else this would be a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark, in use or this would have been a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think, that even I am able to reproduce these rings and that arrow. So this seems too simple for me. I added licence. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD text logo Alan ^(talk) 02:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

logo is outdated, new logo was uploaded Saleyman (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: such a deletion reason needs a better explanation, at least including a link to the new logo. --Jcb (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark,in use or else this would be a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark, in use or else this would be a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark, in use or this would have been a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark, in use or else this would be a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark, in use or else this would be a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark, in use or else this would be a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, uploader has already removed one 'bot licence warning, in use or else this would be a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, uploader has already removed one 'bot licence warning, in use or else this would be a speedy Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a screen shot of non-free software. Copyvio? (I'm uncertain of the rules go in this situation, so bringing it here for discussion.) Senator2029 01:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Apparently the same situation with File:UCBrowserWM.png. Taivo (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ownership of this photo is disputed. It is used here: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/20/opinion/levine-china-india-relations Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There is a bigger copy: File:Jonathan Levine.JPG. Taivo (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Image uploaded to wikipedia before usage on other pages on internet. Uploaded with EXIF to commons, on commons highest resolution. Uploader of image also created/worked on en Wikiarticle of person on image Neozoon (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit is a creative/artistic design (unlike a celebrity person), no evidence flickr photographer has permission from Henson/Disney to release as CC (nor to cut'n'paste this professional/promotional movie capsule). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kermit the Frog on a Log.jpg. DMacks (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For this one and at least one other file, we should try to work out if FOP in Australia, in regards to 'temporary' means photographing kermit at the airport in luggage claims, which would be transitory and temporary and so on, and whether it is ok to photograph him at his organised public appearance. Should on display other than temporary mean at his public appearance, or should it only be applied to something like if he was transformed into a bronze statue in a park, which doesn't really describe him as an animated little green character... we need research on similar cases/rulings in Australian courts! Penyulap ☏ 05:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirmit the frog (6549489945).jpg is a near-dup of this one (and likely one of the ones Penyulap has in mind), so I'm adding it to the nom. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

excellent work. I was actually thinking of a different subject than kermit, but keeping the files grouped is great. We still need some research about FOP and 'temporary' Penyulap ☏ 06:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kermit (6549538139).jpg also. DMacks (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, sorry, but images seem to be copyviolating derivatives per COM:CB. --Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment We do need to look at Australian FOP law here, because temporary often means whilst works are in transit from say Point A to Point B. Would this meet the definition of "temporary" in this instance? russavia (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These pictures appear to have Kermit not permanently installed, but instead intended as a limited-time viewing (interview or some other public exhibition). That would make it "temporary" and therefore not subject to {{FoP-Australia}}. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: "Permanent" does not mean "forever" -- witness ice or sand sculpture, and other similar things, but it does mean that it must have been installed with the intention of leaving it in the one place for the anticipated life of the object. That is clearly not the case here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

does not show the new version of Anna Anichkova (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I don't understand the reason given -- but, in any case, we do keep images of old versions of things for historical use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because its my file and a picture of me. I wanted the image linked with my wiki account not on wikimedia commons. James Hodgkin (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deletion request of personal image by unexperienced uploader of unused image Neozoon (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of panorama in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exhibit in a museum, I don't think freedom of panorama applies as these are often not considered "art" in a juridical sense (at least here in Belgium, i'm not exactly familiar with the copyright situation in the US). Amphicoelias (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some museums, such as the Smithsonian, are state funded, so the art there is "public domain". But this is the Page Museum, which is privately owned. And sculptures and models (even scientific ones) are considered art in any sense, therefore copyrightable (unlike skeletons). Also, photos of this exact exhibit has been deleted form here before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a distinction is made between models & sculptures and mounted skeletons? Seems rather odd to me. However if this is indeed true, then there is no discussion: These images will have to be removed, quickly. Amphicoelias (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why odd? A model/sculpture is created by a human artist, a skeleton is not. At most, the latter is reconstructed, but usually with casts (not artistic) to fill the gaps. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, if you just mount it standing, but often a proper pose has to be chosen, surroundings, ... I find both of them artistic so that's why i think it's odd. Anyway, as i said: If models are indeed "protected" by lack of freedom of panorama, these images should be deleted immediately. Amphicoelias (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the same as posed taxidermy specimens. Even more art goes into them, because the internal body shape is artificially created. But I have never heard of those being covered by copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you get why i think giving copyright to models and not to mounted skeletons is weird. It's an artificial distinction. Amphicoelias (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It's actually easiest to think about it this way -- a man does not have a copyright in his own image, but if a sculptor creates a sculpture of the man, it has a copyright. The one is created by nature, the other by a human. Only the human creation is copyrightable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have this in SVG. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 23:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect map, also names of some settlements are given in one language and some in other.--Giorgi Balakhadze 21:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 23:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This esemplar is die Gildada (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Unused personal photo. Taivo (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template is wrong, it's also a derivative by an unknown person (it's an animated gif - the eyes move after a while!). Serves no encylcopaedic purpose.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the animated version with a non-animated copy of the jpg version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until I came here and saw BMK's message, I wondered if the nomination were a joke; I spent several minutes watching the current revision for movement :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The non-animated version is larger than the jpg, so I doubt it is useful. The animated version is at least an education example of how to freak people out with gif. Regarding the copyright tag, the uploader was probably intending to assert no copyright over their modification of the work in the public domain. I say keep animated version unless someone puts forward some evidence that it is not public domain. (e.g. if the uploader isnt the creator and therefore did not have the right to upload the work in question) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image was created for the purposes of stealth vandalism (I have to admit, very funny - well played, user) - see this edit to en.wp. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the most entertaining and innovative approaches to educating the public that I have come across on any encyclopedia. It is an absolute work of genius and such efforts needs to be commended and expanded throughout the stodgy and decrepit old halls of Wackipedia. WAKE UP and smell the camomile, you stiff hard-asses!--87.6.32.181 16:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: FASTILY 09:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke image - the eyes move - which has been deleted once before. I'm going to replace it with the non-animated, non-joke version, but Currently iould be deleted agpicture Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keepWait a second, this was a new image I created (not the creator of the previous version) for use as userpage image. I'm annoyed you've already removed the animation as that's out of scope for my (or whoever else's) userpage, and will be reverting ASAP but whilst it remains as userpage image the animated version is definitely in scope. It could be and has already been argued that it could be used as an example of creepy/frightening animations and I'm happy to explore those options. -- Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus. Also serves no encyclopedic purpose. feydey ^(talk) 12:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not recreation, different image from the original(my first animation for it was far more complex than deleted file), and above has no consensus 3 keeps 1delete yet deleted anyway. Currently in scope userpage pic is for userpage purposes and policy does not require them to be encyclopedic. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is no need for this image in any way shape or form, whether it's the same as the previous image, or a slightly altered one, because it's a joke which abuses an actual historical image, and, as noted above, outside the scope of this collection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the project scope allows a user to upload "small numbers of images [...] for use on a personal user page on a Wikimedia Foundation project". I have uploaded one image for use on two of my userpages, here and on en wiki. Do you have a good policy based reason why I am not allowed to have this on my user-page whilst numerous other editors are allowed to have animated/edited joke images on their user-pages, because you haven't presented one beyond the fact you don't like it and clearly have never liked it? "abuses an actual historical image" I'm sorry are you implying the picture has feelings or it's six centuries dead creator will be offended in whatever state he is currently in? Clearly that's nonsense, the work is in the public domain and I can alter it in any manner I see fit to use for my personal purpose on my userpage. Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are their joke images alterations of actual historical images which can be mistaken for the original by an unsuspecting user? If joke images get in the way of the actual business of this collection, then it's easy to see that the joke must go, as your joke images was deleted earlier (and despite your attempt to differentiate between them, they are essentially the same, and the arguments above apply to this image precisely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the image File:Vlad Tepes 002 (joke version - eyes move).gif Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they've sat there for years without being deleted or rename "Joke Version" but somehow you feel that without presenting evidence that such confusion has happened or is overwhelmingly likely to happen in the future this example has to be deleted or renamed. Nor have you attempted to gain consensus for such file moving, so I'm not likely to share the locations of other such files for you to take similar unilateral action there. I note you still haven't presented any policy to back your position so I'm guessing there actually isn't any. (besides which I've found an educational use in an existing article about internet images designed to scare through unexpected movement) Petty and officious behavior is not an excuse for the edit warring you are demonstrating here. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken the time to read our renaming policy, I see that this was not a valid reason for a file move without consensus - do you intend to restore it or should I be approaching an admin to get your edit reverted? --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Reason #3: "Correct misleading names into accurate ones" applies here, since the new name more accurately describes the image, so I will not be reverting it. The only conceivable reason for you to object to the renaming is that you want people to accidentally use it, mistaking it for a legitimate image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, your stated reason for uploading the image is to use it on your user pages, and yet you added it the article en:Internet Screamer and rewrote the article to make it apply to the image, changing the meaning of the article entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason #3 Specifically gives examples of images whose names identify different subjects from their contents - had the image been named something like "Bill Clinton 002.gif" that might have been a justification but file names that look a "bit" better should not be renamed and #3 does not apply here. My objection is as my objection to your changing the image to an unanimated version that you are doing so without discussion and doing so in a manner to depreciate it, I would be willing to discuss a new name but there is no grounds for unilateral action - it should also be noted that renaming during deletion discussions is discouraged as there is no point in renaming a file that gets deleted. As for my re-writing of Internet Screamer, I did so to harmonise it with en:Screamer (disambiguation es:Screamer and wikt:screamer nothing to do with changing the meaning to apply to the picture - the meaning of that article already didn't match with other descriptions of the meaning. If reasonable sources can be found to further improve that meaning so that the image doesn't apply then so be it. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found some other pitiful examples, I think this is the worst offender, both the eyes AND the moustache move. I've also found a rabbit with a twitchy ear here, what passes for eternal vigilance these days astonishes me. Penyulap ☏ 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one even though it's not animated, great use of color particularly red and white. Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Why was this deleted for not being of "encyclopedic" scope? We're not an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I have no problem with the animated version. The problems with wikimedia projects is not one of having too many images, but one of not retaining enough editors. If an editor wishes to maintain their sanity by using a bit of humour, then that's great. Put it to use on your userpage and get on with some useful work. I have no great problem with the renaming, but as I've said before, filenames are fairly irrelevant on a multilingual project anyway. Keeping it under the new name would seem to be a reasonable compromise for both sides of the discussion. Lets stop wasting time and harrassing editors. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep but label as a joke. The current filename File:Vlad Tepes 002 (joke version - eyes move).gif seems adequate to me. --Jarekt (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Harmless joke made clear with the new name. However the crucifiction image is a copyright violation of the Where is Waldo? series Isn't it?--Pacostein (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask at the copyright board but I'm certain it's De Minimis. That said, I'm thinking a version with a waldo like character painted in rather than pasted would improve the work. --Woden.Ragnarok (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, considering how many people of Christian religions feel about the crucifixion, you'll never find me helping or supporting the image. But I'll leave it alone on the other hand, other people can work it out. Penyulap ☏ 23:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In use userpage image. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kept: --Alan ^(talk) 02:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Prospin has uploaded these images:

• File:Kanagaraj Balakrishnan.jpg (unused copy of File:Kanagaraj Balakrishnan Tennis Player.jpeg)
• File:Moon Prince Sudesh.JPG (unused personal photo) Taivo (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also File:Moon Prince Sudesh Tennis.jpeg. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, except File:Kanagaraj Balakrishnan Tennis Player.jpeg. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Deleted low quality duplicate of Tennis player image, the remaining 2 (personal?) images can stay --Neozoon (talk)

unknown artist, no notability. -> out of project scope

• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Muchacha en el Mar.jpg
• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mchacha Sexy.jpg
• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( La Dama Morada.jpg
• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Dimelo Papi.jpg
• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Danza de la LLuvia.JPG
• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Chica Taboo.jpg
• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Chica Plastica.jpg
• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( El Grito del Angelito.jpg
• File:HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Angeliro Vuela.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Morena.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer de Fiesta.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Chica Sensual.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Explendida.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Relajada.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Sentada.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Saludando.jpg
• File:- HNO, OSCAR GALO ( Angel de la Guarda.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Encantada.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO (Dama de la Noche.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Camaleon.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Virtuosa.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Nuevo Amanecer Bello.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Morena Linda.jpg
• File:- HNO- OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Amandote.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Pasion de Tango.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Amada.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Efimera.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Nuevo Amanecer.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Consentida.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Aqui Estoy.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Iluminada.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer de la Noche.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Abrazame Mucho.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Desidida.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Vente Pa Mi.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Unica.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Cruzada de Brazos.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Resuelta.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Diva.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Angelical.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Morenita Linda.jpg
• File:- HNO, OSCAR GALO ( Volar Libre.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer en el Bosque.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Nada de Nada.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Sin Limite.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Mujer Atomica.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ) Vendedora de Sandias.jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Foto Portada 3 (1).JPG
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Foto Portada 3 (3).jpg
• File:- HNO. OSCAR GALO ( Foto Portada 3 (2).jpg

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely uploader has the rights to this logo. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment But owing rights to new, 2013 logo File:Aaltjesdagen Logo (nieuw 2013).jpg is believable? Taivo (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio FASTILY 19:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No licence, probably a trademark, in use else this would have been a speedy deletion Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This seems to me PD-Textlogo, so I added that licence and categorized. Taivo (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: fixed FASTILY 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not PD-PRC-exempt shizhao (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Why not? It is an official work of the China National Space Administration, which is a state government agency. Is there a difference to Chinese flags or PD-RU-exempt in Russia? BTW, the copyright holder released it into public domain. --Ras67 (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Эмблема полёта «Шэньчжоу-12».png (due to page auto protection I was unable to add the delete template)
• File:China Space Station Mission Shenzhou 12 Logo.png

Same as Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with shenzhou mission patch: Complex logos exceeding COM:TOO China, and {{PD-PRC-exempt}} would not apply. Wcam (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 KeepThat page is about Shenzhou 5 and not 12. Not PD-PRC-exempt. It is shaped by the national space administration of China. SamsonBVB (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SamsonBVB, why would the flight number matter? And if it isn't PD-PRC-exempt, then what would be the appropriate license? — Huntster (t @ c) 12:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huntster Sorry. Meant that it is PD-PRC-exempt. SamsonBVB (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National China Space Agency is a " state organ of administrative and judicial nature..." Please read Wikipedia about en:China National Space Administration. Keepo! The creator of the Shenzhou 12 logo is the China National Space Administration, owned and ruled by the State of China. SamsonBVB (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As was discussed and accepted in the previous DR, government works are not automatically PD in China. One needs to show proof that an image is from "documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature" or any item in {{PD-PRC-exempt}} to qualify, and webpages from government websites are not such sources. Note that it is the document that has to be of administrative and judicial nature, not the state organ. --Wcam (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Wcam's words. Logos are not covered by any point of {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. Unlike in the United States, government works of China are not automatically released from copyright upon creation. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not PD-PRC-exempt shizhao (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Why not? It is an official work of the China National Space Administration, which is a state government agency. Is there a difference to Chinese flags or PD-RU-exempt in Russia? --Ras67 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not PD-PRC-exempt shizhao (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Why not? It is an official work of the China National Space Administration, which is a state government agency. Is there a difference to Chinese flags or PD-RU-exempt in Russia? --Ras67 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not PD-PRC-exempt shizhao (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Why not? It is an official work of the China National Space Administration, which is a state government agency. Is there a difference to Chinese flags or PD-RU-exempt in Russia? --Ras67 (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Obviously covered by Article 5 of the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China. MachoCarioca (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: FASTILY 19:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file was initially tagged by Patrick Rogel as Logo Ras67 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO#China. - Marking as possible copyright violation because this logo exceeds the threshold of originality and therefore is subject to copyright. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Same like above over six years before. --Ras67 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ras67: You provided 6 years ago www.spacefacts.de/mission/english/shenzhou_9.htm as the website of the China National Space Administration (which it is not). Second, site of the China National Space Administration (http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/) is copyrighted and I haven't found this logo there. Third you say image is "a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia" (which it is not, saying yourself it has been "redrawn by Jorge Cartes (JCR) from Spacepatches.nl"). Then I consider this logo is not covered by Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China: Article 5. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: no evidence that this image is from "documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature" (or any item in {{PD-PRC-exempt}} is provided. --Wcam (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per Wcam and because logo is *far* above ToO. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 18:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

obviously not compatible with {{PD-textlogo}} //  Gikü  said  done  Wednesday, 5 June 2013 23:07 (UTC)

 Keep - this is a {{PD-textlogo}} - Jcb (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not a simple logo. Taivo (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete not pd-text-logo --Alan ^(talk) 02:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: fair use material is prohibited on Commons FASTILY 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same for:

• File:1-5-seeds 1.jpg Photo: Erki Animägi
• File:014 neckless.jpg Photo: Erki Animägi
• File:020 kultusekivi.jpg Photo: Erki Animägi
• File:Aum sound.JPG Judith Cornell, 1994, Mandala s.57.
• File:Kaisa.JPG Photo: Helmi Helminen Nordberg
• File:002 niittahon jussi 1960.jpg Photo: Helmi Virtaranta
• File:Jussisaun.JPG Photo: Helmi Virtaranta
• File:Rugstakk.JPG Photo of; Pilt V. 2002, Eesti rukki raamat, Tallinn, p.15
• File:Svenskhøyden i Viggen.JPG Photo: Astrid Reponen 1930
• File:Log.fence.JPG ?

And PDF files using them:

• File:102-103 side av Svedjebruk forfatter Per Martin Tvengsberg ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5,.pdf
• File:18-19 . side i boken Svedjebruk ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5,.pdf
• File:20-21 . side i boken Svedjebruk ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5,.pdf
• File:22-23 . side i boken Svedjebruk ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5,.pdf
• File:30-31 . side i boken Svedjebruk ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5,.pdf
• File:66-67 . side i boken Svedjebruk ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5,.pdf
• File:90-91 . side i boken Svedjebruk ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5,.pdf
• File:96-97 . side i boken Svedjebruk ISBN 978-82-93036-00-5,.pdf

Images from book "Tvengsberg, Per Martin (2013) Svedjebruk ISBN: 978-82-93036-00-5." Although we have OTRS Ticket:2013040210010711 for the text and images by the author. Those images are by different photographers. Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment See User_talk:Svedjebruk#Improper_license for discussion about those files. I would like to request closing admins to give user:Svedjebruk a month or two to research the copyrights of those files and possibly contact photographers or institutions that hold their copyrights. --Jarekt (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A permission to use the Pictures taken by Erki Animägi will soon be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org--Svedjebruk (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That will be great. That will take care the first 3 images. --Jarekt (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It has been about a month, and this request seems to have gone stale. If OTRS permission is eventually recieved, the files can be restored. FASTILY 20:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]