Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/08

7 January 2024

9 January 2024

Deletion requests on 8 January 2024

January 8[edit]

File:Памятник Пермяк соленые уши.jpg[edit]

No free panorama in Russia Altenmann (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Insuranceman22 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Files with dubious claim of own work.

Spinixster (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The following: Garnet Kozielec, Rosie the Riveter.jpg and Maxine Marshall young.jpg ‎No edit summary. --RAN (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Would like to point out that these files are by a single use account, and the files seem to be promotional. The uploader has uploaded more files, but I am not sure if I should nominate them now or later. Spinixster (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Benjamin Harrisson Freedman.jpg[edit]

Image has insufficient credit and sourcing; taking an image of an image and releasing it under a free-to-use license does not nullify the commercial interests of the original image-taker. Bremps... 02:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete false source and credit; no evidence of free license. Person shown died in 1984 so this is clearly not a 2018 photo, and cannot be assumed to be old enough to be PD. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep {{PD-US-not renewed}} Every noob uses the default settings. I have exhaustively looked through the copyright registration database for any images that have been registered for a copyright, or had their copyright renewed and there are no images listed under any variations of his name. This covers images up to 1989. He was in the news in 1950s and again in 1961. --RAN (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep old photo from the 1930s, no evidence of copyright registration. Moreover if copyright registration did exist, it has long expired.George Al-Shami (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MalcolmFraserHeadshot.gif[edit]

pointless .gif duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Malcolm_Fraser_1977.jpg , not used in any articles-- FMSky (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The original version, that the deletion requester overwrote in 2022, is not a duplicate. Tm (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a duplicate until you reverted it to an extremely low quality version for no reason. May i ask you why you did this? --FMSky (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a not duplicate until you overwrote it and then overwrote other file with the exact same file for no reason. May i ask you why you did this? Tm (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original file was in the size 196 × 158, the new one 600 × 840. Why are you restoring the low-res file? --FMSky (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Until you overwrote it and then overwrote other file with the exact same file for no reason. May i ask you why you did this? Tm (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original file was in the size 196 × 158, the new one 600 × 840. Why are you restoring the low-res file? --FMSky (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a not duplicate until you overwrote it and then overwrote other file with the exact same file for no reason. Why did you did this and then opened this deletion request? Why overwriting a file and then open a deletion request to it? Tm (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original file was in the size 196 × 158, the new one 600 × 840. A bigger size/quality means that an image has a better quality/looks better/is preferred, while a very low size/quality means that an image has worse quality/looks worse/is not preferred. Thats why i uploaded a higher res version --FMSky (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And then you also uploaded a duplicate version overwriting other image. Why wasting other time then? Tm (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also image was a 923 × 831 version now extracted from the NARA tiff. Tm (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont understand any of your arguments or actions on this page --FMSky (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 - Another user had overwroten File:John Malcolm Fraser 1977.jpg in 2017, originally uploaded in 2006 (my mistake before saying it was you that overwrote this image)

2 - You overwrote this image File:MalcolmFraserHeadshot.gif, originally uploaded in 2008 with a completly different crop and aspec rationin 2022 (as you usually do to images in heavy use)

3 - You then nominate this omage as duplicate.

So, why if it was not duplicate until you overwrote it for no reason at all, why do you nominate this to deletion instead of uploading a hq version like i did? Tm (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, i dont understand you or your reasoning, so i am done with this discussion -- FMSky (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Chescargot (talk · contribs)[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion by user:ErikvanB "Marking as possible copyvio because The use of this image from Discogs is in violation of Discogs' Terms of Service" - I deleted them, but per the uploader's request, have restored them and am opening a regular DR.

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant discussion copied from uploader's talk page:

:Ha Erik, zowel volgens de bovengegeven link naar Discogs voorwaarden (ihb "You may only contribute content which is in the public domain (i.e., expired copyright or public from inception) or otherwise available through a CC0 “No Rights Reserved” license, or content for which You are the rights holder.") en in deze link (onder "Intellectual Property Rules") lijken deze foto's wel degelijk bruikbaar? Kun je me uitleggen waarom ik het mis zou hebben? Chescargot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chescargot, ik had alleen deze pagina gelezen, waar staat "or content for which You are the rights holder" en "We grant You a limited license to access and make personal use of the Service and not to download (other than page caching) or modify it, or any portion of it, except with Our express written consent." Maar de extra link die je geeft schrijft weer: "By uploading images to Discogs you agree that the image meets one of the following requirements: ... You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or (...) Fair Use." Dus nu weet ik het ook niet meer. "Fair use" is in elk geval iets dat we op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia niet gebruiken. Misschien kan je op de overlegpagina's van de foto's een verdediging geven zoals je hierboven hebt gedaan? Bedankt voor de info in elk geval! Hartelijke groet, ErikvanB (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zal ik morgen doen dan, wanneer ik weer achter mn computer zit. Prettige avond! Chescargot (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha Erik, ter info: ik heb mijn bezwaar hier ingediend. Bij de andere genomineerde afbeeldingen heb ik een link naar dit bezwaarschriftje gemaakt. Groet, Chescargot (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant discussion from one of the file talk pages:

This image has been downloaded from Discogs-website, which to my understanding does allow doing so with the appropriate licence. On the discogs.com website;

On this page is stated under Licensing of User Content: " You may only contribute content which is in the public domain (i.e., expired copyright or public from inception) or otherwise available through a CC0 “No Rights Reserved” license, or content for which You are the rights holder. Certain content may also be contributed if it complies with applicable fair use or quotation standards and/or represents an item You are listing for sale in the marketplace (i.e., images, specific item information)."
And on this page is stated under Intellectual Property Rules: "1. Image is Public Domain (expired copyright or public from inception); or 2. You own the rights to the image and agree to make it available via a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or 3. Image is already made available through a CC0 "No Rights Reserved" license; or 4. Fair Use – any image representing a physical or digital product in the Discogs Database for the purpose of critical commentary or for the purpose of reselling a physical product under the First Sale Doctrine.

Ergo, the images there are free to use with the indicated licences, which are indeed used for the nominated image.Chescargot (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It's worth noting that the images can be found elsewhere on the web at higher resolutions, and if there's a way to see who uploaded images to Discogs and when, I couldn't find it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Info A Wayback Machine archive[1] shows they were uploaded to the site no later than April 2023. 0x0a (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Godło "Teraz Polska".jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Masur as no permission (No permission since). COM:TOO? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep looks too simple to me, should be retagged to PD-textlogo too. TheImaCow (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a problem with the photograph, as it clearly illustrates what stretch marks look like on an adult man. There is the visible male genitalia, but it isn't a gratuitously obscene display, and it ensures that the photo is definitely that of a male. My only concern is that it says 18 year old man. Is that legal age everywhere? I get confused between what is allowed for 18 year olds versus 21 year olds. If it is legal, then it is okay.

I would note though that the image was uploaded many years ago, and is not used on any wikipedia articles or sister projects. That might be cause for deletion.--FeralOink (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah delivers a speech.webm[edit]

Above COM:TOO logo Kelly The Angel (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which one? The one behind him is PD-inelligible (just arabic text) and the one of the TV station is de minimis (and could be redacted, too). PaterMcFly (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The PressTv one Kelly The Angel (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this can be considered de minimis. It's clearly not the scope of the video, and it's quite small. PaterMcFly (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The English hymnal (1906).djvu[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Xover as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Contributions from, among others, w:Ralph Vaughn Williams who died in 1958, and as such is still in copyright in the UK under pma. 70.

Converted to DR for easier undeletion. Not PD in the UK until at least 2029. Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Wissam al-Tawil official.jpg[edit]

Probable license laundering. It is unlikely that Mehra News has the authority to release the image under the given license, as it was released by Hezbollah Military Media: See AP News image credit. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose, the image is also hosted on (Raja News) which is also covered under creative commons 4.0, Template:Rajanews. Ecrusized (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether an image is hosted in one place under an illegitimate license or multiple has no bearing on the image itself. There needs to be explicit permission from the copyright holder, and the website you linked to does not have that. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Stories & Poems from the Twilightq.pdf[edit]

Out of scope: plain text. This is not in scope as a source document for Wikisource, as it is both an extract and a work of fiction from after 1928; please see s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes for details. Omphalographer (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the whole book is creative commons. But it includes the works of other quite a lot of other people, and i was reluctant to upload it without consulting them. Am I being deleted because it is an extract? If so, I understand. But I would be grateful if you could specify the reason further, so I can avoid repeating my mistake. Historyradio (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The long and the short of it is that:

Wikisource only accepts documents which are from before 1929 (i.e. whose US copyright has expired due to age), or specific categories of newer documents. This content is modern, and is not one of the classes of newer documents which is allowed.
On top of that, Wikisource only accepts complete, original documents. This is neither.
Commons generally does not host plain text content, outside of scans of source documents for Wikisource or print-ready versions of content already hosted by other Wikimedia projects (e.g. print copies of content from Wikibooks). This is, again, neither.

For details, please refer to Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats.

Omphalographer (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Хоростків - пам'ятник жертвам репресій.jpg[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created after 1991. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor. Микола Василечко (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Home to Harlem (1928, McKay).pdf[edit]

Out of scope: plain text. A scan of the original work would be in scope as a Wikisource source document, but this is a modern reproduction. Omphalographer (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it’s out of scope for Wikimedia then I can reupload it at Wikisource. But I don’t think it’s out of scope since we don’t have a copy of the original text, and the work is wholly in the public domain. A transcription of such a work is helpful to have when other options are not available. I would

Keep until we have a more proper scan. SDudley (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Nigrita Center.jpg[edit]

Διπλη ιδια φωτογραφία Griffinsgr (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Peregrine Mission Onepng.png[edit]

It wasn't created by NASA, and Astobotic's works are not in PD Artem.G (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Спасибо за внимательность. Не верно указал описание файла при создании как логотип, а это скорее эмблема. Доказательство что это изображение создано Astrobotic по ссылке --Red1921 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Даже если так, в пдф и на сайте Астроботик нет индикации что их изображения в public domain. Для таких эмблем есть fair use. Artem.G (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- - Спасибо, подскажите как изменить тип использования файла --Red1921 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vivian Schmitt 02.jpg[edit]

unneeded, basically a duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vivian_Schmitt_cropped2.jpg and not used in any articles--- FMSky (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The deletion requester originally claimed that this file (created in 2009) was a duplicate of File:Vivian_Schmitt_cropped.jpg (created in 2010). But the deletion requester changed the claim of duplication to this image being a duplicate of File:Vivian_Schmitt_cropped2.jpg (a version uploaded by me after the opening of this deletion request). Tm (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically we have too many versions that look exactly the same and should be deleted --FMSky (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If, as you claim, there are "too many versions that look exactly the same" (i.e. you claim there are all the same) and given that most of this versions are versions that you originally overwrote in other files and then other users (like me) split to new filenames, then why did you.

1 - You cannot claim one thing at one time when you overwrite files and its contrary in the next time someone reverts you. Overwrote the original versions of several files, claiming that your versions were an improvement but now, after being reverted and having your versions moved to new filenames, you claim that there are "too many versions that look exactly the same" when you previously claimed that your versions were an improvement?

2 - Either they you claim that your versions are improvements or they are eactly the same as the originals. You cannot claim one thing at one time and its contrary in the next time. If your versions, keeping with the logic of your tought, look exactly the same as the original versions why you overwrote the original versions of several files in the first place if they "look exactly the same"? Tm (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Deletion requester tried, today, to upload his version over this file and was reverted and that it is why this Dr was open. Being in use is not a reason to delete images. Also deletion requester "forgets" to mention that File:Vivian Schmitt cropped.jpg was uploaded in March 9 2010 and this file that he calls duplicate was uploaded in October 16 2009, i.e. a "duplicate" existed before the original. Tm (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're extremely weird --FMSky (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are the one that is trying to overwrite this image since 2022 and for the third time and the weird is me?????? You were the one that opened this DR after being reverted and the weird is me?????? Tm (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What we could also do is revert this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vivian_Schmitt_cropped.jpg to the ugly not-color-corrected version and upload the proper version under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vivian_Schmitt_02.jpg --FMSky (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also this file is not in use because deletion requester] forgot to mention that [he removed its uses, not once but more than once. Tm (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you want to keep worthless files? --FMSky (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are not worthless files, or you would not try to overwrite then several times. Also, why do you try to overwrite files that were uploaded for several years with your versions instead of uploading your versions under a new filename? Tm (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cause they were clear improvements --FMSky (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No they are not clear improvements. Read Commons:Overwriting existing files before you make any more "improvements" to other files. Tm (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Monica Sweetheart, 2002 (cropped).png is another example were there was a close portrait and you uploaded a completly different crop that is nuch less tight image that is not an face portrait. And this an image in heavy use in several wikipedias, aspect that you seem to also overwrite images that are in heavy use in several wikipedias with images with completly different aspect ratios, crops, etc. Tm (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a mistake by me in 2021 and i have since uploaded it under a new file --FMSky (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You overwrote File:Monica Sweetheart, 2002 (cropped).png three times on January 8 2024 (i.e. TODAY) and not in 2021. Tm (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It would be helpful if User:FMSky would stop making "improvements" on existing files which are nice files. It would be even better if he would stop replacing files all over Wiki on a large scale by his "improved" versions. These actions are generally considered uncivil. Vysotsky (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You voted keep, but what is actually your reason for wanting to keep it? --FMSky (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are 5 versions of this file, dating from resp. 2006, 2009 (crop), 2010 (crop), 2018 (further crop) and 2024 (crop). It is strange to remove a 2009 crop with the argumentation that it duplicates the 2010 crop. Vysotsky (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by LeshchakViktoriya (talk · contribs)[edit]

Unlike to be own work, the depicted person is unlikely to be the photographer. We need a COM:VRT to keep these images.

Günther Frager (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ticket:2024011110009745 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 18:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:185 1Kerenski Pétrograd.jpg[edit]

Credit to "our special envoy". Possibly a credit to the writer/photographer is inside the periodical? Abzeronow (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Le magasine, modifié par la guerre donne un ours trés réduit et aucune mention des photographes, il fait même appel à toutes les images des amateurs et des combattants en promettant de les acheter et de les publier. Cordialement Gérald Garitan (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vous pouvez aussi consulté le site http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb40360453x/date1917 Gallica.fr.

I have searched the issue https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6524020z and found no credit for photographer.

Keep Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Forbes.svg[edit]

I replaced the one place this was used with File:Forbes logo.svg, which appears to be the correct color for the logo. That leaves this unused and unlikely to be used. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Ali Ahmad Khan's rebellion against Habibullah Kalakani.svg[edit]

FakeSVG. A defaked version already exists at File:Flag of Ali Ahmad Khan's rebellion against Habibullah Kalakani (defaked svg-version).svg. Not an exact duplicate, though, so it doesn't apply for F8. Rubýñ ^(Talk) 23:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Boy masturbation and ejeculation phimosis.jpg[edit]

Pornography/Harmful content 2001:861:8AC8:6450:14A6:FCB0:A78:E991 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Not a reason to delete (assuming the "19 year old" in the description is correct). PaterMcFly (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Disagree with the rationale from the nominator - although I am in favour of deletion as per COM:NOPENIS low-quality, unneeded. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/2024/01/08

Contents

January 8[edit]

File:Памятник Пермяк соленые уши.jpg[edit]

Files uploaded by Insuranceman22 (talk · contribs)[edit]