The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shankar1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• User has a history of uploading other images as "I took this photo", both under this account and under the previous blocked account Rajeshbiee. I haven't been able to find the source for this (or the earlier upload on this page). —SpacemanSpiff 08:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The photographer is Rajeshbieee who looks around 25 in this pic that was taken in 2009. He says he took this in 1985. So, he would have been around 1 years old at the time, and therefore unable to hold the camera steady. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were similar problems at Commons too where he has said he owns the physical photographs, now the story has changed. —SpacemanSpiff 09:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your point is very much valid Anna and let me tell you, I am 40 years old and if I look as a 25 year old as you have mentioned, then I am very happy to know that as I, myself is an upcoming actor in film industry and thank you for the compliment. As I have mentioned, I do have association with films and filmy people and I believe that answers all.Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you were 34 years old in this photo? Because that would make you 10 years old when you took this in 1985. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• you got it right Anna. I do have similar photographs with me as I am associated with film industry. Rajeshbieee (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you were 10 when you took this. Just to be clear. Are you sure? I mean, it's a pretty professional shot for a 10-year-old photographer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this picture has been overwritten. The oldest upload is claimed to be from 2012 while the current upload is claimed to be from 1985 (see the information templates in the upload log summaries), but the age of the photographed person seems to be about the same on both pictures. How can someone be at about the same age in both 1985 and 2012? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Stefan, he (Shankar ) is a film actor and still he is known for his young looks eventhough he is 55, the industry people are always asking him, how he is maintaining his looks.Rajeshbieee (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As shown in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 October 28#File:Actorshankarphoto.png, the uploader can't be trusted. Note that there are three different pictures in the file history, all uploaded by the same user. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Depending on which (if any) claim you believe, the uploader was aged only 1, 6 or 10 when the photo was claimed to have been taken in 1985 (mysteriously with "1981" in the file name). Rajeshbieee has a lengthy record of image copyright violations and of dishonesty over his ownership of them, so nothing he claims about ownership of images can be trusted. The lies surrounding this one are more blatant than most, with the "No, he really hasn't aged a bit between 1985 and 2012" claim especially hilarious. 823510731 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If the claim on looks, then the actor Shankar is still looking the same and Malayalam film industry know that, I request to keep the photo.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Any update on OTRS Ticket #2015103010013963 ? Rajeshbieee (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Uploader claims to have taken this photo when he was 10 yrs old. Plenty, plenty of contradictory and dubious claims of ownership with many images. I trust zero uploads by this user. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Anna... I am disappointed, hurt and sad.Rajeshbieee (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please note that the uploader has finally admitted to lying about this one at User talk:Rajeshbieee#Hurt (and after treating us like idiots with such outrageous lies, *he's* the one who's feeling hurt!) 823510731 (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shankaractor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is definitely a webgrab, as just yesterday I deleted a photo from the same set as the intermediate upload on this as a copyvio. The images are all cropped and modified so it's difficult to find the right source. User and his previous account Rajeshbiee have been uploading multiple such images as "taken by me" —SpacemanSpiff 09:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the photograph belongs to me as I have already mentioned about my association in film industry. Yes the photo is cropped to get the right look on this page and I believe there is no issue with the same. Please don't bring here a previous bad account history here to compare upload of photos. As I mentioned, I am working in film industry and I do have lot of photos taken by me.Rajeshbieee (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As shown in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 October 28#File:Actorshankarphoto.png, the uploader can't be trusted. Note that there are three different pictures in the file history, all uploaded by the same user. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious copyvio if the reporter has already deleted one from the same set. Rajeshbieee has a lengthy record of image copyright violations and of dishonesty over his ownership of them, so nothing he claims about ownership of images can be trusted. 823510731 (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems like a punishment to remove all the images I have uploaded, this one is my own photo. I can send you the original photo without cropped if you wish. Please understand that I am a person working in film industry and have contacts with many film people and I have clicked many photographs of them.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't keep parroting the same thing again and again. Given the level of obfuscation from both your accounts you are lucky not to be blocked yet. —SpacemanSpiff 08:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Anna - 823510731 - Stefan2 — SpacemanSpiff.

Last one week my life is like hell for experiencing the accusation as "serial violater" eventhough I am a dedicated wikipedia editor for the past 5 years and even in this period, no one said bad on my textual contribution, but now only photo uploads. The primary accusation here is " EXIF copyright in the file itself says "Copyright,Spreadtrum,2011" - if you took the photo, you must know how it got there " and I provided valid reply for the same as I am using Samsung Z1 Mobile/camera which uses the Spreadtrum processor that has been certified in the wikipedia article itself [1] and please go through it as understand that the listed mobiles will show the copyright as Spreadtrum,2011 only, moreover I have also given two other photo upload by another editor and the files are " File:Alpana on saraswati puja2.jpg and File:Khaste lake.jpeg " and this too shows copyright as Spreadtrum,2011. Now let me ask you... what is my mistake here? Am I supposed to meet the Spreadtrum head to change the settings as Copyright, RajeshBieee? Let me know your next step as I have provided you the valid reason of licesing for my own photographs and yes 1-2 photographs of mine was found in the artiste's website and yes, myself only provided that to the artistes and I have already mentioned several times about my association with film industry. Evenif I have provided you the right explanation, the result I got are..

1. Removal of Autopatroll. 2. Edit restriction, no uploads.

I believe you admistrators are good enough to understand the right and wrong and if I have provided you the right evidence, then why the 'PUNISHMENT'? and please note that I am not 'PARROTING' or showing 'obfuscation'. I would like to get a reply from you people on the evidence I have provided and finally please let me know the status of OTRS ticket #2015103010013963 Rajeshbieee (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to read the above. This is nothing to do with punishment. It has everything to do with protecting the project. I have no confidence that you have the rights to any of these uploads. Too many contradictory and dubious claims of ownership. I simply do not believe you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Plenty, plenty of contradictory and dubious claims of ownership with many images. I trust zero uploads by this user. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Anna... I am disappointed, hurt and sad.Rajeshbieee (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is indeed possible that the copyright statement is some sort of default in that camera phone (although that actually tells us nothing about who owns it). But the uploader has finally admitted to lying about another of his uploads at, User talk:Rajeshbieee#Hurt, which he had been staunchly defending with outrageous claims in the section above this one. Also, SpacemanSpiff has tracked down yet another of this person's uploads to its real source, so he has clearly been lying about that one too. So even as he's bitterly complaining about the possible loss of these "Spreadtrum,2011" images which he insists are genuinely his, he's still plainly lying about other images up for deletion at the same time, and at this point I think we simply cannot believe a word this person says about any uploads. 823510731 (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The tide has turned against me but I love wikipedia and I will continue contributing as I am a lover of film and sports. I hope you people will remove the restriction in the future. Thank you for the time. Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:NewTaiwanDollar100-2000.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:NT100-2000.png. Stefan2 (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zulfiqlsinger.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The original upload is a clip from this video while I can't seem to find the second upload online. The editor has been uploading scores of images as own work both under this account and under the older account Rajeshbiee, it's perhaps time to delete them all on the basis of Commons:Commons:PCP, but as that's not policy on en.wiki, I'm bringing it in here. —SpacemanSpiff 15:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original revision is a proven copyright violation. Rajeshbieee has a lengthy record of image copyright violations and of dishonesty over his ownership of them, so nothing he claims about ownership of images can be trusted. 823510731 (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is also my photograph. Please do not delete it.Rajeshbieee (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You uploaded a clip from a video and claimed it as your own photo! 823510731 (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Plenty, plenty of contradictory and dubious claims of ownership with many images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F9 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donghae Taipei.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donghae Taipei.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The commons request has a overly complex explanation. The original file permits copying, but its license is incompatible: "拍摄 photo by: @miheexp Don't modify and please credit when take out", so it is a copyright violation/wrong license situation. see http://miheexp.tistory.com/archive/20151014. I am going to speedy delete this as a copyright infringement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting, didn't see that notice. There's a CC-BY icon at the bottom with a link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ko which contradicts the notice at the top. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep and convert to fair use. — ξ^xplicit 03:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:AinOfficialPoster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Poster. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.