Commons:Deletion requests/2024/08/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
2 August 2024
4 August 2024
Deletion requests on 3 August 2024

August 3

[edit]

File:Закавказская железная дорога. Джаджурский тоннель 1.png

[edit]

Прошу удалить, загрузи файлы по отдельности, в данном изображении актуальность пропала Well-read MountainMan (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kentucky senate diagram.png

[edit]

This file had been superseded by File:Kentucky Senate diagram, 2016-18.svg, which is a svg file. Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台灣 Taiwan 台北 Taipei 中山區 Zhongshan 南京東路 Nanjing East Road 臺北捷運 松江南京站 Songjiang Nanjing Station morning March 2024 R12S 02.jpg

[edit]

Non-free 2D work in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Navassa flag.png

[edit]

I don't think it's in the public domain, and it was reuploaded as a PNG. ErrrrrWhat (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:台北捷運橘線松江南京站7號出口圖騰.JPG

[edit]

Non-free 2D work in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gretel II.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 05:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph tagged is my own. Jdash30 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdash30 Can you please explain how you took theis photo with an iPhone? Thanks Ruthven (msg) 12:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meiji University Track and Field Club member, the 2nd Hakone Ekiden Champion Team.jpg

[edit]

1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

この画像を削除せよと強く訴える人がいるからです。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

人聞きが悪いな。「削除せよと強く訴える」なら即時削除タグ貼るか削除依頼出すだろ。明治大学関連は明白な著作権侵害あるいは出所不明の画像を大量投稿する捨てアカウント群（例：UZM、MDCK、SDCLUB、VATSU、AERWIN etc.）がいるんだから、原典が明らかでない画像のページにNo Sourceの告知を貼ってんだろうが。原典が明らかなページにまで乱発はしてねぇよ。--1.33.123.150 03:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
あ、自分がNo Sourceの告知を貼った一部の画像に対して、あなたが正しい原典情報を追記し削除を回避したことについては感謝してます。誤解なきよう。--1.33.123.150 03:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

出典情報があやふやであっても、PD-Japan-oldphoto を適用し得る画像や Google画像検索 などで著作権侵害を確認できない画像まで抹殺することはないでしょう。

たとえば File:Meiji University old memorial hall auditorium.jpgは『東京横浜復興建築図集 1923-1930』という文献によって、1931年以前に撮影された画像であることがわかります。これを削除されたことは到底納得できません。闇討ちのような形で No source のテンプレを貼りまくる行為は感心しません。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

削除されたあとでも、原典がはっきりした状態であるならば、そしてそれが本当にウィキメディア・プロジェクトで使用する必要のある写真であるならば、あなたが再アップロードすれば済むだけの話では。COM:PRPによれば、ファイルはライセンスに疑義のある状態では受け入れ不可なので、あなたが疑義のない形にすればよろしい。No Sourceは1週間の猶予があるのに何が「闇討ち」か。疑わしいファイルを突然アップロードするほうがよっぽど闇討ちだろがい。--1.33.123.150 07:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ひょっとしてあなたは日本版Wikipediaで無期限ブロックを受けた羽生さんかんさんじゃないですか？つい最近も「マケイン文芸部」と称する人物が奇妙な編集を行っていたようですし。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

だと思えば勝手にそう思ってれば？　レッテル貼りしかできない惨めな人だね。ちなみにJAWPは「日本版」じゃなくて「日本語版」ですけどね。日本語を話す非日本人を排除する思想をお持ちのようで。--1.33.123.150 22:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

通常の削除依頼であれば第三者が削除の是非を判断します。しかし、あなたの場合は第三者を介入させない形で強行削除を繰り返しました。また、「1週間の猶予」も短すぎますね。通常の削除依頼であれば最終判断が下されるまでに数か月を要することもあります。

あなたは著作権侵害を叫ぶ前にオリジナル画像のリンクを提示すべきだったはずです。それをせずに多くの画像を闇に葬り去るのは荒らし行為と言わざるを得ません。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

これ以上はもう埒が明かないので最後にします。「あなたは著作権侵害を叫ぶ前にオリジナル画像のリンクを提示すべきだったはずです」とのことだが、その義務を負っているのはCOM:EVIDによればアップロード者でありこちらではない。こちらはその画像がCommonsにあろうがなかろうがどうでもいい、ただ怪しいファイルには消えてほしい。だから今後も原典が「Unknown source」などとだけ書かれたファイルがあれば、No Sourceを貼る。あなたがそのファイルを残したいのであれば、原典を示す責任はあなたにある。責任転嫁も甚だしいんだよ。削除されたとしても、原典を示せるのであれば再アップロードすればそれでよし。--1.33.123.150 23:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

私はあなたが削除した画像のアップロード者ではありませんから、原典を示す義務は私にはありません。削除すべき画像がCommons上に存在するのであれば、あなたがその理由を一つ一つ丁寧に説明すべきでした。

あなたは自分のこれまでの振る舞いに一点の曇りもないと強く信じているのであれば、なおさら通常の削除依頼を行い、第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでした。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

なお、あなたとの関連性を疑われる「マケイン文芸部」は無期限ブロックされました。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meiji University Surugadai campus Third Memorial Hall.jpg

[edit]

1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Meiji University Third Memorial Hall.jpg

[edit]

1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

この画像の出典は『東京横浜復興建築図集 1923-1930』（建築学会、1931年）ですが、削除せよと主張している人がいます。 --ブルーメンタール (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:ΣNK（Ffraternity in Meiji University）.jpg

[edit]

1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Sasak language distribution.svg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Devaniyá123 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: file previously uploaded by Sockpuppet. See User:Nyilvoskt Krd 06:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd sorry, that is completely non-sensical, take a side from correct license and sourced image, that image supposedly not nominated. Moreover, considering the user tagging it was blocked indefinitely in several projects, I can't see why is this nomination is good-faith after all. Plus, accepting "sock-uploaded" as a reason from a sock account isn't really a bright move. Best regards, Nyilvoskt (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
add: This was the initial file description and these were the references taken from the image: Map of languages in Bali map of languages in Nusa Tenggara Barat. Nyilvoskt (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TW 台北市 Taipei 大同區 Datong District 迪化街二段 Dihua Street 遊客中心 Visitor Centre March 2024 R12S 07.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted posters in Taiwan. Solomon203 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep QR codes are not copyrightable, the scribbled buildings/mountains etc are de minimis. If not, I can blur them, the image won't loose it's value. ~TheImaCow (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pskov-Coin.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Well-Informed Optimist as no source (No source since). Discussion is needed as per COM:GOF. Quick1984 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:張景森對料羅港區東碼頭開發計畫表示支持.jpg

[edit]

Photo courtesy of Kinmen Daily News, see the original post at [1]. 0x0a (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

如果是這樣就麻煩刪掉 Jason22 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All files at Category:Minutes of the Vote Count for the 2024 Presidential Elections in Venezuela

[edit]

Recently, User:Wilfredor has uploaded the minutes of the recent Elections for the Presidency of Venezuela. I think that the minutes are in the public domain, as those are legal documents. However, the uploader is tagging the page https://resultadosconvzla.com/ as the source of this minutes, and adding the official body Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela as the author of the files. This is incorrect tagging, as the web https://resultadosconvzla.com/ is not the Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela, but an ad-hoc website created by the Venezuelan opposition to show what they say that are the official minutes. I don't have any proof to say that those minutes are real or counterfeited, but the website https://resultadosconvzla.com/ has a copyright tag, and it's not the Consejo Nacional Electoral de Venezuela. - Theklan (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep 1) The minutes are just data, therefore no copyright applies.
2) The "ad-hoc website created by the Venezuelan opposition" is pretty much legitimate, since delegates from the opposition are one of the parties which receive the minutes printed by the machine, along with the CNE. You are attributing an authority to the CNE which it doesn't have in the least - that's the very reason these minutes are impressed and distributed to a number of delegates from the various parties in the first place.
It's irrelevant if you believe or not in these delegates, since it's not up to you to decide or audit that - and in all circumstances they would be in the Public Domain for being nothing but non copyrightable data. Darwin Ahoy! 09:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are different arguments here:
  1. This minutes are not just data. Raw data is general in the public domain, but collections of data can be copyrighted, as databases can be copyrighted. Anyway, this is not the case here, as the uploader didn't upload raw data, but JPGs, which have a layout, signatures and other items.
  2. I don't know if the ad-hoc website is legitimate or not, the minutes are real or not, but anyway those are not the minutes from the CNE, because the data presented is different. That's why this minutes can't be attributed to the CNE, but to whoever has created the ad-hoc website, which is under copyright.
  3. If there's this mismatch, we can't claim that this are the actual minutes having the authorship of the CNE, because that's not true. I'm not the one attributing an authority to the CNE, is the uploader who claims that this documents come from the CNE, which the [Government of Venezuela claims is not true. We should refrain from claiming that this are official documents, and attribute it to the source, which is this copyrighted website.
  4. If the copyright applies here or not is another discussion. If this was raw data, I wouldn't argue about the copyright (the discussion would be about the factuality), but it's not raw data, but JPG files with other elements inside.
Theklan (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan According to the source, those are the minutes automatically emitted by the machines. They certainly do not come from the CNE, they come from the voting machines. They were signed and delivered to the delegates and the CNE, those being the ones from the ConVzla delegates. I'm puzzled why you say that the data presented "is different" from the CNE minutes, since AFAIK those were never made public. So unless you have some inside source at the Miraflores Palace, I don't think your claim can hold any water there. Anyway, it seems you are not even arguing about copyright, so I'm also puzzled what this DR is about. Darwin Ahoy! 10:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't come from the CNE, then the source is not the CNE, as stated by the uploader. The source should be changed to state that this images don't come from the CNE (which is one of the claims here).
The data is obviously different from the the CNE, because the sum is not matching. If the data would be the same, the result should be the same, which is not. There's even an official video claiming that these are counterfeited, which I can't post because of spam blocking of youtube: youtu.be/wspxQWlkM8o. Theklan (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan These minutes are very much legitimate, as they come from ConVzla delegates, which are one of the legitimate sources according to Venezuelan law. It's absolutely irrelevant if they are equal or not to the CNE ones, since the probability of fakery is the same for both sides, and as I said, that's the very reason why these paper minutes are emitted and kept in first place. You seem to be jumping to extraordinary conclusions by blindly believing CNE claims without even seeing any minutes from their part. Anyway, that would not be up to you to decide, in any case.
As for the files, if your problem is with the author being CNE instead of the CNE voting machines, that can be quickly fixed using VFC, AWB or a bot. And it still is not a copyright issue. Darwin Ahoy! 10:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the source is not the CNE voting machines. The source is a copyrighted website claiming these are legitimate documents, which is, at least, contentious. Theklan (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan The source is an official ConVzla website presenting the minutes of their delegates as (according to them) received from the voting machine operators. As already stated, your claim that they are not legitimate has no basis at all, as well as the references to a copyright mark on the website which obviously do not apply to materials which are themselves in the public domain. Please refrain from repeating the same thing over and over, that doesn't add anything to the debate. Darwin Ahoy! 11:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the author should be "ConVzla". Theklan (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan No, that would mean they completely fabricated the minutes, which is a rather extraordinary claim without any base. The source information we present should be factual, not arbitrary Wikimedist opinions and baseless claims. It has already been fixed, BTW. Darwin Ahoy! 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new authorship seems better. Theklan (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding The data is obviously different from the the CNE, because the sum is not matching: the CNE has not released any tally sheets at all. It has only twice stated vote counts: on the 29 July it gave vote counts that correspond to the percentages 51.20000%, 44.20000%, and 4.60000%, to that level of precision, and on 2 August it published some vote vounts that give the invalid/null count as 0.41000%. These are for counts supposedly accurate to the level of several million voters. These are only barely more credible than 60.00000%, 35.00000%, and 5.00000%. So based on the w:WP:RS, there is no reason to expect there to be any match between the CNE values and the actas; the CNE vote counts so far published (just a tiny handful of numbers) are not credible.
If the CNE ever publishes tally sheets, then we can publish them under PD with names like File:11 DE JULIO CNE.jpg instead of File:11 DE JULIO.jpg. Boud (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep The CNE logo is not copyrighted, and the rest is just data printed from a machine. Even a copyrighted website can host files that are public domain, even if they do not declare it as such. I am also wondering how this deletion request is not motivated by the nominator's position on the disputed election results, similar to Darwin's concerns. --Minoa (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, refrain from canvasing me. I'm not from Venezuela, not even from South America. Theklan (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Each vote tally has a QR code to confirm its authenticity. The copyright law in Venezuela is clear in saying that documents authored by the government are in the public domain ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}). Even if the actas were supposedly counterfeited, I doubt that they reach the threshold of originality, since they mostly consist in text and signatures. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The QR encodes the number of the machine and the number of votes. You can check it yourself. The authenticity is checked with the hash number in the top and the digital signature in the bottom, and this can only be checked with the database from the CNE. So you and me can't know if the uploaded minutes are real or counterfeited... we can only know if the QR code and the number of votes displayed in the top are the same, which is something quite easy to do.
Anyway, I'm not asking anyone to judge if the documents are real. And even if they were conterfeited they still have a place in Commons, as those are historical documents to prove the dicussion itself. What I'm claiming is that we can't say that this are a work from the VenezuelaGov, because the Government of Venezuela claims that this minutes are false. We should attribute those to the opposition party which created the website, so we don't create more confusion. Theklan (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep According to the Venezuelan Copyright Law, documents issued by the government, such as voting records, are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright (Art. 4). These records, printed by voting machines and distributed to delegates from different parties, including the opposition, meet this definition. Additionally, the presentation format, such as JPG files with signatures and other elements, does not affect their public domain status as they do not reach the originality threshold required for copyright protection (Art. 3). Even though the records were uploaded from an opposition website, this does not change their public nature or legitimize a copyright claim by the website. It is not up to us to determine the veracity of the documents, but to ensure that copyright rights are respected. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not up to us to determine the veracity of the documents, but to ensure that copyright rights are respected". Exactly that. The only way this are PD is if the documents were printed by voting machines, which is under dispute. Theklan (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan No, it's not. The source is authoritative and claims the documents were obtained from the voting machines. That you apparently don't believe it is really immaterial to the case, as there is no copyright claim to start with: The source claims the documents were issued by the CNE voting machines, therefore PD-Gov (and even without that they would be in the PD, anyway). Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not what? Are you claiming that this is not under dispute? Because I have read some news talking about the issue with these documents, and the Government is claiming that those are counterfeit (I provide the video above). Theklan (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theklan What is not in dispute is that:
  • The minutes came from the ConVzla website;
  • ConVzla claims these are the minutes issued by the CNE voting machines;
  • ConVzla is an authoritative source for minutes obtained from the CNE voting machines, under the Venezuelan law.
That Maduro or the CNE is in dispute with ConVzla about the nature of these minutes is absolutely irrelevant to Commons. That was very much expected, that's why they were printed, signed and collected by CNE and the party delegates present at the voting stations in first place. Darwin Ahoy! 15:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but they were also signed by the CNE personnel in the polling centers. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelako Hauteskunde Kontseilu Nazionalak (CNE) boto-akten faltsuak direla dioen arren, horrek ez die eragiten hauteskunde-prozesuan zehar jaulkitako dokumentu ofizialen izaerari. Dokumentu horien izaera ofizialak dirau, prozesu gobernamental formal baten barruan sortu eta banatu baitziren, eta Venezuelako egile-eskubideen legearen arabera, domeinu publikoan daude. Beste dokumentu gobernamental batzuekin antzekoa da, behin jaulkitakoan, haien egiazkotasuna zalantzan jartzen bada ere, dokumentu ofizialak izaten jarraitzen dute. Boto-aktek ez dute izaera ofiziala galtzen haien edukia dela eta egon daitezkeen eztabaiden ondorioz. Adibidez, Ameriketako Estatu Batuetako Erregistro Presidentzialen Legearen kasuan, administrazioak sortutako dokumentuak gobernuaren erregistro ofizialak izaten jarraitzen dute, zalantzan jartzen edo aldi baterako kentzen badira ere Wilfredor (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep peer discussion (En el articulo 325 de la Ley organica del Trabajo,los trabajadores y trabajadoras LOTTT,es totalmente clara.)
AbchyZa22 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Under Venezuelan electoral law, the observers at a polling station have the right to take away copies of the actas. There's no sign of the actas being faked, except for w:WP:FRINGE claims by government authorities. There seems to be no doubt about the PD copyright status. Boud (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mural Donegall St Belfast.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


A1Cafel, could you help me understand the issue "NO FoP for 'graphic works' in the United Kingdom". This is picture I took several years ago of still extant public mural. Surely photographs of a piece of public/street art are not restricted. Wikipedia articles are filled with such images. But maybe I have missed something. Regards ManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked with "Commons:Freedom of panorama". It lists UK FoP for '2D "works of artistic craftsmanship"'--for which a defining, though perhaps not definitive feature, is that the creator had "the conscious purpose of creating a work of art" which is surely the case here (see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama). So it seems to be okay. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Europe_NC.svg ManfredHugh (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Discussion for moreManfredHugh (talk) ManfredHugh (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sandy Row says no!.jpg

[edit]

No FoP for "graphic works" in the United Kingdom A1Cafel (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


See Discussion ManfredHugh (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The club organization of Meiji University.jpg

[edit]

1946年以前に撮影された画像だとは思いますが、削除の是非については第三者の判断を仰ぐべきでしょう。 ブルーメンタール (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral Cruceña.jpg

[edit]

According to User_talk:DarioCUELLAR#Deleted_content this file has been deleted. This file now has a link to File:Desktop Screenshot 2024.05.08 - 19.56.25.89.png and some text. To me this does not look correct. Can this file be deleted? JopkeB (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a wrongly placed request to move back the deleted image, with the screenshot as prove.
@DarioCUELLAR: A correct request:

  • should be addressed to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team and
  • the proof should be an email from the owner of the copyright in the format shown in that page (also available in Spanish); the consent should be for commercial use and modify also, exactly as stated in the example/format.

--JopkeB (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Attilio Barcella, Alberto Tomba and Michele Bulanti.jpg

[edit]

Per warning: Post-1975 Italian images are copyrighted in USA A1Cafel (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Blair Gormal.png .jpg

[edit]

Is Blair Gormal a person of historical significance? If not then I don't see why this photo needs to be held by wikimedia. 2A02:C7E:5C65:6C00:4941:A0F6:A889:33BC 11:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Johnson, the other person in the photo is notable, even though Blair Gormal is unclear. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 12:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KSavys.jpg

[edit]

l'ho caricato io questa determinata foto, desidero di cancellarla definitvamente KSavys (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Il file va cancellato perché non desidero più che sia disponibile pubblicamente. KappaSavys (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egyptian NDP election symbol.png

[edit]

The political party had no unified election symbol. German2000 (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Egyptian NDP election symbol.png

[edit]

The political party had no unified official election symbol. so, this symbol is inaccurate to demonstrate that the party had a Crecent as an election symbol. In the Egyptian electoral system, the candidate chooses their election symbol, regardless of party affiliation. German2000 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr - USCapitol - Sarah Winnemucca Statue.jpg

[edit]

I'm reasonably confident that, despite the photograph being properly free because it was created by an employee of the United States government acting within the scope of their official duties, this does not negate the fact that this statue is copyright of living artist Benjamin Victor, and it was photographed in the US where freedom of panorama does not apply to 3d artworks. DS (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue with this one and this one and this one and many of the ones in this category. DS (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TÜ kultuuriteaduste instituut Foto- M.Tulf.jpg

[edit]

Not own work. VRT-permission from the creator/photographer or rights holder is needed. Estopedist1 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ramon-Baez-Figueroa-.jpg

[edit]

Pienso, entonces existo. No es trabajo propio. 200.39.139.26 15:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

賈甲

[edit]

There are only three Commons photos of Jia Jia, who is the main topic of this gallery. For some reason it also features a photo of Jia Kuo, of whom there are only two photos in total. The recently created Category:Jia Jia and Category:Jia Kuo are currently more useful than a gallery page. These topics don't yet benefit from samples or overviews. Sinigh (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sudovikov.jpg

[edit]

Фотография человека, умершего в 2004 году, не может быть собственной работой 2024 года. Jim Hokins (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Bowie Letter 1967.jpg

[edit]

This letter is not own work of uploader. It is a letter from the musical artist David Bowie. It was sent from the UK, to America via mail. The CC license is invalid as the uploader did not create the work. Can be undeleted 70 years after the death of Bowie. Only way this could be kept if {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. Would mailing a letter with no notice from the UK to USA count as simultaneous publication? PascalHD (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the Sandra Adams who received the letter. I'm now Sandra Dodd.
If the legalities require it to be deleted, I don't mind. I've had a scan of it on my own website for over 20 years, and when "Letters of Note" found it there and picked it up, it went EVERYWHERE. King Features made another scan, so there are two images out there.
The letter was mine; addressed to me, sent to me.
The physical letter was sold, a few years ago. Last I heard it was in a museum in Japan; that was probably a traveling exhibit.
The fact that I received it, and eventually scanned it, can't be undone.  :-) 2601:8C0:703:7270:E1EF:BA56:81F:982B 16:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having copies and physical possession is not the same as the issue in question; copyright. Wiki Commons required all files to be freely licensed or public domain. Based on the evidence, it does not meet those requirements to be hosted here until it enters the Public Domain 70 years after authors death, per COM:L. By all means it can be posted anywhere else in the internet. Glad to hear it is in a museum, cool! PascalHD (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Aslan Musin (2008-06-10).jpg

[edit]

Turns out, this image already exists (File:Aslan Musin.jpg) Malik Nursultan B (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia lina shtern 30 01 2024.jpg

[edit]

Bogus PD rationale (70pma for an unnamed author), no evidence of first publication 70 or more years ago to meet COM:Russia requirements. Quick1984 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She was photographed in jail procedure when Joseph Stalin ruled. She was freed from jail when Joseph Stalin died in 1953. So, 2024 - 1953 = 71. And this is a minimum, because the mugshot probably from 1949, when she was arrested. It's obvious public domain, I suppose. Are you having other opinion? Thank you, anyway, for your attention on Wikimedia Commons patrolling. PoetVeches (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rules are about publication, not creation. Quick1984 (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the mugshot done by KGB USSR, so it's again obvious public domain. Do you think someone can obtain rights of mugshots done by KGB USSR? Maybe CIA or Mossad? PoetVeches (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just read here Licensing "Copyright may extend on works created by French who died for France in World War II (more information), Russians who served in the Eastern Front of World War II (known as the Great Patriotic War in Russia) and posthumously rehabilitated victims of Soviet repressions (more information)." You was just wrong, I suppose, implying "70 years since first publication". Read the Licensing again, please (description in more section). PoetVeches (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found also other reason of public domain: the document (mugshot of Lina Stern) is brought from Source: "Website https://bessmertnybarak.ru/article/noch_kaznennykh_poetov/" that has license for all documents: "Free copying (Rus. Свободное копирование). Free copying. Any use and reprinting of materials is welcomed by the editors of the project. The materials are collected from various sources, often family memories. We believe that information about these important pages of history should be free for distribution, no restrictions can be imposed on them. This is our history, and we are obliged to know it, preserve it and tell it to children. (Rus. Любое использование и перепечатка материалов приветствуется редакцией проекта. Материалы собраны из разных источников, часто это семейные воспоминания. Мы считаем, что сведения об этих важных страницах истории должны быть свободными для распространения, на них не могут накладываться никакие ограничения. Это наша история, и мы обязаны ее знать, сохранять и рассказывать детям.)" So, it was published in the source under Free copying license. Anyway, if you think it is wrong, you may delete the file, because maybe you have more experience on Wikimedia. In God we trust. PoetVeches (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses policy. The one you describe is not acceptable. Quick1984 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are very inattentive. There is no point in reading the text of a deliberately irrelevant template that you have set up, since if you do not know who the author is, you cannot claim that he died more than 70 years ago. Regarding the terms of copyright for works created in the USSR and Russia, carefully read the link already provided to you above: COM:Russia#Durations. Quick1984 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep In the absence of conflicting Russian case law, we rely on USA case law and mugshots are "made public" at creation, copies are made and viewed. --RAN (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:熱帶風暴戈登襲美國墨西哥灣沿岸地區.webm

[edit]

Although VOA is owned by the US government who releases their material into the public domain, this file uses copyrighted video from Live Storms Media that can only be used through paid licensing, thus, not free. IrishSurfer21 (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Reverse ekiben position.png

[edit]

Bad quality 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 09:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy keep COM:INUSE on four different wikis. The only substitute that exists is a very low-resolution probable copyright violation. Your opinion on the quality or lack thereof is moot, especially considering there’s far worse illustrations of sex (File:Phonesex.gif, File:Spoon position on bed.PNG, File:Illustration-of-Buttjob.png, File:Diagrammatic, non-explicit, depiction of a male performing cunnilingus on a female..jpg) that are considered in scope. Dronebogus (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Kadı Message 00:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reverse ekiben position.png

[edit]

Bad quality, exactly as for the previous nomination. The difference is that we now have a rather better quality alternative: File:Reverse ekiben sex position.png It is INUSE, but that can be addressed by replacing it with the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I don’t think there’s really a precedent to delete something solely because a better version exists if the inferior version came first. File:Blowjob.svg is an older, clearly inferior to File:Wiki-fellatio02.png and will likely never be used in place of that file or another superior image, but that doesn’t mean the first one is automatically out of scope. Deleting good-faith uploads because a better version has subsequently been uploaded is playing hindsight 20-20 with the original uploader. Dronebogus (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Per nomination. 💚Kelly The Angel (Talk to me)💚 06:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep for now. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about COM:INUSE. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's kept or not, it should not be INUSE. We have a better option now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s for people on eswiki and simple wiki to decide. I added it to simple wiki so I don’t care if it’s removed there, but I only used it to replace a deleted image on eswiki and do not edit there. As far as I’m concerned the ball’s in their court now. Dronebogus (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus The "people on eswiki and wimple wiki" didn't decide to use the image - you did. You added it to those projects. You didn't consult the "people on eswiki and wimple wiki" when you did it, but now "they" have to make the decision to remove it and no one else can remove the image? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edit on simple wiki, and added the image in that capacity; I already stated I don’t care whether it’s replaced or not. Eswiki was just me replacing a copyright violation; I do not edit there regularly. Me replacing a copyvio with the only contemporary alternative is, in my view, a simple courtesy; changing it from one image to another seems like a value judgement best left to the editors of that wiki. But that’s just my view of the situation. Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Counterfeit Purses: just for clarity, your image is not in any way based on my image, correct? Dronebogus (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus Just for clarity, are you literally insane? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Counterfeit Purses: keep doing that and I am going to have an extremely good case against you at ANU. It’s a legitimate question: if there is any relation between the two images then the original should be kept as the source and the new one should be marked as a derivative work. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus It is not a legitimate question. It is a ridiculous question. The more times you ask, the more legitimate my question seems. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Counterfeit Purses: if it’s so stupidly obvious to you why can’t you give a straight answer? Because the more times you say something uncivil and evasive the less I’m inclined to believe you. Dronebogus (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus There's a limit to which questions I will entertain. I don't feel the need to humor your delusions. If you don't like it, take it to ANU. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were reported yesterday and were warned your behavior wasn’t great looking just today. I’m not about to immediately take you back there, but this unnecessary hostility is getting really old. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep A publication may want to use a caricatured version, rather than more realistic version. And we should keep an entire set in the same style. If someone uses this to illustrate a book or magazine article they would need a complete set. If there are more in this set, they should be in a category. --RAN (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep AI is controversial, and subject to change. People and projects may reject AI out of hand. We shouldn't delete a hand drawn image for an AI image. This whole DR is just making trouble; there's no reason we can't have two images in this category, and there's no reason Spanish and Simple Wikipedias can't police themselves.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This does not appear to be "in use" any longer. Delete as unused low quality self-made art. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Too low quality to be in COM:SCOPE. Commons:Commons Is Not DeviantArt Wikipedia-based trope alluding to COM:SCOPE, but struck to avoid confusion per below. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC). — Rhododendrites talk |  02:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That link goes nowhere. COM:CENSOR does go somewhere. Category:Ekiben (sex position) has two illustrations for reverse ekiben, and the other is AI that shows bad fingers. I continue to be frustrated that we toss DeviantArt files wildly, but not the Flikr and Photobucket files that Commons:Project scope actually mentions. Category:London Bridge has 282 files, (that's not counting subcategories) many of which are small, poorly photographed, unused and redundant but we can't have two files on reverse ekiben.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is probably the first time ever I’ve seen AI art being favored over human-made art. In any case @Rhododendrites: shouldn’t cite made-up policies. Dronebogus (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      you have both chosen to ignore the actual policy I linked and focused on the conspicuous non policy. It's a trope on enwp to refer to overly specific examples of the "what wikipedia is not" policy. COM:SCOPE is the commons equivalent. Apologies if that was confusing. To the point, I reject the idea that absolutely any image which claims to depict a subject is automatically in scope if we have no other images. That may usually be the case, but once in a while something comes along that cannot feasibly be used for any purpose. We're in that territory here. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      An image that “cannot feasibly be used for any purpose“ would be ”[a] nonsense AI-generated image of a nude figure (with at least one extra leg) climbing out of a painting”. Per Prosfilaes and RAN, this is not that. And why did you include a “conspicuous non-policy” in the first place if you knew it wasn’t a policy? Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Three of the arguments people have against AI images are that (a) they don't depict anything real, (b) the quality is sloppy, and (c) one is often no better than what a potential reuser could just generate themselves. All three of those apply here, too. For anyone who *really* needs a free picture of the "reverse ekiben position" such that absolutely anything will do, they can just draw their own and it won't be worse than this. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You’re making a huge assumption about the drawing abilities of the average person. Do I have to bring up the (in-use) bathroom-stall graffiti that is File:Phonesex.gif again? Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      COM:CENSOR links to the same page as COM:SCOPE. If anyone can draw better than this, then do so. I certainly can't. Any image which depicts a subject (there's no realistic claim that this doesn't depict the subject) is automatically in scope if it's the only picture. Perhaps it's easily obsoleted, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating; replace it before deleting it.
      The arguments against AI that concern me are that there's still legal questions of copyright violation in the air, and that no matter what the law says, it's wrong. The first could have Commons deleting all AI images; depending on the local laws, specific projects may chose to avoid AI images even if Commons stores them. The second could have specific projects banning AI images. Either way, an AI image should probably not be our only image for a subject if we have an option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emblem of Ambazonia.svg

[edit]

Can't seem to find a source for it pre-upload. The only thing I can find is the one of the Ambazonia Defence Forces, which are part of the Ambazonia Governing Council. And even then, this isn't an exact copy of that, it's the INSIDE of it's seal.
I tried asking for a source but it seems Samhanin doesn't respond to talk page messages anymore, and when I tried to ask on said talk page, I got nothing back.
On the file itself too, there is no source for it. So I dunno where he would have ever gotten that this was the emblem of Ambazonia, but I guess he did, did this, and now, it seems people think it actually is even one of the emblems of Ambazonia, when in reality it seems to be nothing much at all other than the inside of the Ambazonian Defence Forces' seal. Not even a government. Just a militia, it seems.
Since this seems to have came out of nowhere, I am now nominating it for deletion. If you can somehow find a source for it in a crevice that I couldn't, and it's before the creation date of this (29th of January, 2022) then sure, I'll eat my words. But it doesn't seem like it exists. Kxeon (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on but he outright refuses to respond to any kind of messaging and has been doing this for the past year or so I think? NorthTension (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2024/08/03&oldid=921408195"