Commons:Deletion requests/2023/12/27

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
26 December 2023
28 December 2023
Deletion requests on 27 December 2023

December 27[edit]

File:New Shepard M7 crop.jpg[edit]

Source ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasafo/26774652828/ ) does not state this is a NASA photograph. States photographer credit as Blue Origin. See related request at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:New Shepard. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:New Shepard[edit]

Sources do not claim these are NASA photographs. They are credited to Blue Origin, and the stated Flickr licenses are not compatible with Commons. See related request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Shepard M7 crop.jpg, from before I realised the scope of this issue.

— Huntster (t @ c) 04:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:DTE ON STAGE BEATPATROL.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gbawden as no permission (No permission since). High-quality photograph with full metadata. However, that metadata indicates that a particular author "Jaka Rogelj" is the creator of this photograph, and I do think that we might want evidence of permission for this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Md Joni Hossain 12.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Yahya as no permission (No permission since). High-quality photograph with full metadata. That being said, it looks like the uploader is the article subject, so I'm bringing this here in light of COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Md Joni Hossain.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Yahya as no permission (No permission since). High-quality photograph with metadata. That being said, it looks like the uploader is the article subject, so I'm bringing this here in light of COM:PRP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:By quantity[edit]

This template has multiple issues:

  1. The author provides no documentation as to the types of categories for which it is intended and named the template in a way that gives no hint that it is to be used with MetaCats only.
  2. MetaCats (for which this template was intended--see the template source as the author provided no documentation for its use) should never use navigation templates as the primary key for any MetaCat already provides its navigation and has done so for as long as MetaCats have been a concept. Providing a second way to navigate subcategories at the top of the category is redundant and distracts from the longstanding navigation provided by the subcategories arranged according to the MetaCat's primary key.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Keep Actually, I did not intend that for metacats. I created it for cats like Category:3 turtles, which I wanted to link to Category:1 turtle and the like, which did NOT already have a template like "Turtles by quantity".
See, I intended it as a generic "X by quantity" navigational template, since Template:Organisms by quantity clearly wouldn't work here.
(Same applies to Category:4 people by country and Category:9 cosplayers--I wanted them to link to Category:3 people by country etc., and Category:6 cosplayers etc., respectively.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 I withdraw this deletion request Thank you for demonstrating that there is at least one sane editor left on Commons. I withdraw this deletion request. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DanielPenfield and Shāntián Tàiláng: It seems that my edit was the reason for this misunderstandig, at least for point #2, I am sorry for this! (I do not compleatly understand, why metacat "should never use navigation templates", but ok, maybe more details under User talk:Auntof6#"rem template that's only for metacats".
regarding point #1: A documentation would still be suitable, thank you! --W like wiki good to know 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh, DanielPenfield, I don't think you properly withdrew the deletion request. Aren't you supposed to remove {{Delete}} from the Template:By quantity page, and then add {{Delh}} and {{Delf}} to this deletion-request page? Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not an admin and those are administrative actions, so if I perform them, I'd expect to be scolded and sent up to A/NI. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, sorry. Thanks anyway! Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg[edit]

Reasons for deletion request: This file is copyrighted by BabaPhoto. Please remove it. - Kalocsaizsuzsa (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kalocsaizsuzsa: you uploaded it 8 years ago saying this was your own work. How does BabaPhoto come to own the copyright? - Jmabel ! talk 07:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kalocsaizsuzsa (talk · contribs) previously stated that she is the subject (Q1103629) but the account is very likely operated by Nóra Kamarás (AKA Hella Krencsey), not confirmed former partner of the subject, who accuses the subject with domestic violence. She also published a book about this, is currently suing the subject and pushed this information to the huwiki article and is permanently blocked on the project.

According to her blog, all pictures with BabaPhoto watermark were taken by her. In ticket:2023122710001034 we also received a take-down request. Please note that the following file uploaded by the user has the same issue:

Bencemac (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bencemac: thank you. Under the circumtances, I'd oppose deletion. Sounds to me like if this is a copyright violation, someone should serve a DMCA notice; otherwise, we should assume for now that the (irrevocable) CC license is probably valid. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion, I responded to the ticket and suggested foundation:Legal:DMCA_takedowns. Bencemac (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lamborghini Squadra Corse logo.jpg[edit]

Don't see how this file is PD --Minorax«¦talk¦» 07:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Grave Site.jpg[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Sahaib as no permission (No permission) Krd 08:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files in Category:Photographs by Anton Mak[edit]

Per commons:Deletion requests/Files found with incategory:"Photographs by Anton Mak" incategory:"Taken with Canon EOS 6D", it looks like these photos are incorrectly licensed.

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep first two. Unlike the photos in the deletion discussion above, the Lil Yachty ones were published on Mak's own Flickr page, not on thecomeupshow's page. Back in 2016, I emailed him and asked him to change the licensing so we could use the photos on Wikipedia, which he did. If necessary I can forward these emails to someone for verification. No opinion on the Yung Lean photograph. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep all 3. Not mentioned in the deletion discussion above, not mentioned in the DMCA notice, given (and still holding) a correct CC-BY license on Flickr, license confirmed by reviewer at the time. Vysotsky (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Frigento vista dall'alto.jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vista aerea di Frigento.jpg (third upload) Rojelio (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsure whether it's the same photo, as I never saw the previous ones, but it appears to be an analogous issue. -- Rojelio (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no valid reason to delete this photo from Wikimedia Commons since it is unpublished, it is my own property and it has all the meta-data that prove my statements. I would also like to point out that I’ve been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a week for “copyright infringement” but this action is not correct since I own the property of every single picture that I uploaded. You can easily recognise how this last photo is different from every other picture that you can find online. Speaking about the photo from this website view and perspective are different and it's easy to see the totally different position of the orange car, just to give an example. Frg.gm (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:버들초 교표.png[edit]

License error: In the copyright policy of the school website, it specifically mentions that it is free-use only for non-commercial purposes. Aspere (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:버들초 로고.png[edit]

License error: In the copyright policy of the school website, it specifically mentions that it is free-use only for non-commercial purposes. Aspere (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Пам'ятник поету, письменнику, художнику Тарасові Григоровичу Шевченку, село Доброводи.jpg[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors and architects copyright. Created 1964. Derivatives of work - photo nonfree sculpture. No Permission from the sculptor Яків Чайка). Микола Василечко (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Prof. Kelly Mua Kingsly.jpg[edit]

il existe déjà plsieurs version NDONG MEBENGA Octave (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Roberto Alonso.jpg[edit]

Fails COM:EDUSE. Image uploaded for cross-wiki promotional articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This guy. Doesn't merit a Wikipedia article because of insufficient secondary sources, but could be useful to other reusers, so  Keep. Needs a brief description, though. How about taking it from that article? "Venezuelan rancher who helped lead the opposition to [former Venezuelan] President Hugo Chavez." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ferrari 412 T1.jpg[edit]

probably copyviol, cf. size — danyele 18:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Philippe SIMON 2023.jpg[edit]

copyright? author? Xocolatl (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:5e6762dd90da6d9f8c102941.jpg[edit]

com:Redundant low quality version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:China_Ministry_of_State_Security_insignia.png Abovfold (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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:Chinese Department of National Security.jpg[edit]

No official proof that this is indeed the official emblem, badge or seal of the Ministry of State Security of the People's Republic of China (which does not actually have an official presence on the Internet of their own, either independently or otherwise). Does not seem to have originated from a page of an Internet site with the .gov.cn suffix. Quite possibly entirely fictitious indeed. Urquhartnite (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do u mean this or this one?--Sanandros (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The logo here looks pretty similar to that one which we have.--Sanandros (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not even remotely close. That one is essentially an enclosed miniature of the Chinese national emblem within another emblem, whereas the one out of the other two contains, in fact, a somewhat stylised, non-standard (tilting somewhat to the right) symbol of the Chinese Communist Party (the modern Chinese version of the hammer-and-sickle). Anyway, that belongs to the Chinese People's Police Force and also that of the Chinese Ministry of Public Security (Gong An ( 公安 )) (and their various provincial or other provincial-level and sub-provincial subsidiary organs) [1], i.e., the Chinese MVD; which are in fact a separate Chinese Government department to the Chinese Ministry of State Security (Guo An; 国安 ; 国家安全部) [2]; i.e., the Chinese NKVD or KGB (but probably run more on the lines of the GPU, the OGPU and the GUGB). -- Urquhartnite (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kept: If it is a fake it isn't a copyright violation and the file is used so it is automaticly in scope. Natuur12 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chinese Department of National Security.jpg[edit]

com:Redundant low quality version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:China_Ministry_of_State_Security_insignia.png Abovfold (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Md-Ariful-Islam.jpg[edit]

author? see metadata Xocolatl (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

its my picture. mondol mohammad arif and Md Ariful Islam is a same person Mondall Mohammad Arif (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comedy videos uploaded by Neegzistuoja (talk · contribs)[edit]

Most likely license laundering from YouTube uploader Walter Latham; videos from recordings of stand-up comedy films such as The Original Kings of Comedy.

reppoptalk 20:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya! Thanks for flagging, as I was definitely wrong to upload that Mr Bean clip around the same time as these, so you're right to doubt me! But I think there's a bit more of a discussion to be had with these ones, because I believe the "YouTube uploader Walter Latham" is actually this Walter Latham, who was a producer on Original Kings of Comedy and founded a production company that worked closely with the comedians in these videos. If you go to his website walterlatham.com, it's the same YouTube account linked in the social media icons in the footer, so it actually feels pretty legit to me... Thoughts? Neegzistuoja (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, that seems to be true, but there are two other companies (MTV and 40 Acres and a Mule) that produced the film as well as a distributor (Paramount Pictures), I'm wondering if Latham himself has copyright to the entire film to put as {{YouTube CC-BY}} like he was the creator of the entire thing. reppoptalk 22:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Robo de identidad ayuda.jpg[edit]

Lot of personal information, not educational purposes. Police case of identity theft. Ganímedes (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files by Larry Philpot[edit]

Cory Doctorow and Joshua Brustein accuse Larry Philpot (User:Nightshooter) of using Commons to sue people. If these accusations are true, he is exploiting Commons and hurting our mission and reputation. We should have no tolerance for such bad faith foolishness. See Category:Images by Marco Verch for a similar previous situation. Nosferattus (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support Sad to lose these images, but I don't think we should be placed in the position of inadvertently aiding a copyright troll. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete as per nom. Yann (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete per nom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep These were already discussed, and it was decided to keep them but with proper attribution (and warning about lawsuits) on the images themselves. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_74#Vote:_overwriting_the_images_with_forced_attribution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Clindberg: Why? No one in their right mind, including Wikipedia, is going to use these photos. As MetaBrainz wrote, "While we wait for Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons to take action on this, we will not reinstate artist images or include any images that link to Wikimedia Commons." And if anyone does reuse them, we're just aiding and abetting the spread of the images. Maybe the first generation of reusers will correctly attribute them, but will the 2nd generation? What about the 3rd? By keeping these images on our servers, we are helping Larry Philpot exploit us for his own gain. What possible reason could there be for us to keep the images? Nosferattus (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • That's fine if nobody uses them; I think that was expected. People from the outside could still be using them; we never know. The reasons for keeping them, modified with the warning, were long discussed four years ago -- that was the "action" that MetaBrainz was waiting for. This is not a new issue, nor a new complaint. Anyone using the image will be made aware of the issue. It's perfectly legal to use the images, provided the credit is correct, and the correct attribution being part of the image itself makes it pretty hard to misuse. If they can provide any benefit to anyone though, they are still here to provide it -- deletion prevents even that, and seems more like trying to hide the issue. Lots of people discussed it long ago, and I don't see any new rationale for deletion which was not brought up then. The Village Pump mention made it seem as though this was a new problem, or one that we had ignored, which was not at all the case. There is another user's uploads which are the new issue, who was not directly named at all despite being the subject of the first link. These in particular have been dealt with, and I do not see a good reason to delete them, given the discussion four years ago. The ones from the new user, perhaps deletion is still the best recourse there. For these though, I see no reason to overturn the decision from four years ago, and wipe out the work they did to add the warning to the images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Delete Protecting our reusers from harm is more important. Sending a message that we will not tolerate copyleft trolls will also protect those who want to reuse photographs and would prevent future abuses by others. Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The approach used before, and discussed at length, does protect re-users since the proper attribution is embedded, and those images cannot be used with the tactics. Deletion sends no message at all since they won't be here to send that message. They do need to be protected from further overwriting, but I believe these have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep There was consensus to keep these files in 2019. Unless new arguments pop up, there is no need to start old discussions all over again. The articles mentioned in the intro aren't exactly recent news. The current files can't be overwritten and contain a clear message to people wanting to misuse Commons. Keeping them (incl. this warning) is better then removing the images from Commons. Vysotsky (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep and add warnings. I would hope that if someone published one of these photos and included a link to the Commons page, then a court would find that link would satisfy the CC-BY requirements. If we delete the page, then the link would not be sufficient notice. I would also hope that publishing a photo with EXIF would be sufficient notice if that EXIF metadata included the required information. I take no position on Philpot. CourtListener search. Glrx (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Keep just add warnings. No reason to delete. Юрий Д.К 21:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Did you actually read any of the articles linked from the deletion nomination? Nosferattus (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Of course, yes. And I continue to oppose deletion of files for such reason. Deleting these files is a very bad precedent that may lead to the deletion of valuable files from Commons. I think we will face with copyleft trolls periodically in the future. Protecting our reusers from harm is important, obviously, but this problem easy may be solved by warning notice. Юрий Д.К 21:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a further point, many of these files are still in use. Some of them still for their original purpose, and others as illustrations when discussing these copyright lawsuit issues. File:Willie Nelson at Farm Aid 2009 - Cropped.jpg is used at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source, File:Tom Petty 2.jpg is in use normally, File:Kenny Chesney 2013.jpg is used on Signpost articles from a few years ago when the Philpot lawsuits were brought to light (and also used for its original purpose on the Turkish Wikipedia), File:Daughtry 2013.jpg is used on a Bulgarian article on copyright trolls, etc. At least 10 of these files are still in use in some fashion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Delete delete all. This should have been done in 2019, when they were blocked. We shouldn't be doing anything to support users who behave like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/2023/12/27&oldid=847916484"