Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 September 17
Contents
- 1 September 17
- 1.1 Image:Sava.jpg
- 1.2 Image:Stamp.qe2.australia.800pix.jpg
- 1.3 Image:Jasenovac6.jpg
- 1.4 Image:Jasenovac6.jpg
- 1.5 Image:Jasenovac32.jpg
- 1.6 Image:Crispus_Attucks.jpg
- 1.7 Image:Stamp.france.curie.750pix12.jpg
- 1.8 Image:Turtle_dove.jpg
- 1.9 Image:JeannetteRankin.jpg
- 1.10 Image:JEdgarHoover.jpg
- 1.11 Image:Lincoln_Bank_Tower.jpg
- 1.12 Image:Princearthurdukeconnaught.png
- 1.13 Image:Ac.bernardgrenfell.jpg
- 1.14 Image:Ac.arthurhunt.jpg
- 1.15 Image:Masseria.gif
- 1.16 Image:Kookaburra.ogg
- 1.17 Image:Dritandovolani.jpg
- 1.18 Image:AncSkylineGood.jpg
- 1.19 Image:Streams of silver det01.jpg
- 1.20 Image:Sera-04.jpg
- 1.21 Image:Francois_cevert.jpg
- 1.22 Image:Draza-Mihailovic.jpg
- 1.23 Image:BrigitteAndreassierPearlAPNewsApril2005.jpg
- 1.24 Image:The All Together (Jpegs) 013.jpg
- 1.25 Image:The All Together (Jpegs) 026.jpg
- 1.26 Image:Martin, Gavin & Danny.JPG
- 1.27 Image:The All Together (Jpegs) 004.jpg
_013.jpg){kind=link}
_026.jpg){kind=link}
_004.jpg){kind=link}
September 17
[edit]
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by DarkFalls (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
says public domain because from US holocaust memorial museum, but this is not enough info. where on the website is it from? why is it pd? Calliopejen1 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't PD. [1] --DarkFalls talk 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Current image is coming in from Commons, and totally different from deleted one. Superm401 - Talk 00:52, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I8 by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no explanation as to why it is pd, looks copyrighted to me Calliopejen1 00:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an Australian government work, so it expired either 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation. Under either rule, it is now PD (though it wasn't when first uploaded...) Superm401 - Talk 01:00, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by DarkFalls (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
says public domain because from US holocaust memorial museum, but this is not enough info. where on the website is it from? why is it pd? Calliopejen1 00:04, 17 September 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by DarkFalls (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
says public domain because from US holocaust memorial museum, but this is not enough info. where on the website is it from? why is it pd? Calliopejen1 00:04, 17 September 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
says public domain because from US holocaust memorial museum, but this is not enough info. where on the website is it from? why is it pd? Calliopejen1 00:04, 17 September 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I8 by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no source given for pd status. was this a contemporaneous portrait? if so, it should be pd. i couldn't find anything about it on google. Calliopejen1 00:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged no source. Superm401 - Talk 01:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Found evidence that photo is contemporaneous; published in 1754, according to Getty. Removing no source tag. Superm401 - Talk 19:34, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Andrew c (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no reason given that it is PD, looks copyrighted to me. Calliopejen1 00:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite likely to be copyrighted. I believe it's still copyrighted unless the author died before 1937. There is good reason to doubt this, since the stamp was apparently made after 1934. Superm401 - Talk 01:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above assessment and deleted the image. Template:Non-free stamp is not an appropriate replacement here because the use of the image was simply to decorate a list, not for accompanying critical commentary on that particular stamp (thus failing WP:FUC#8.-Andrew c [talk] 15:06, 6 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I8 by Fran McCrory (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
can anyone who speaks german confirm that the images on this website are PD? i don't see anything obvious to an english-speaker that indicates that... there are many other images from this same website that have been uploaded. Calliopejen1 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, valid PD claim Go to [2], it says "aus: NAUMANN : Naturgeschichte der Vögel Mitteleuropas, Band VI, Tafel 4 - Gera, 1897", this translates as "taken from: NAUMANN: Natural history of the birds of Central Europe, volume VI, plate 4 - Gera, 1897", see Johann Friedrich Naumann for details about the author, I think the copyright has expired long ago, as Germany has the same 70 year delay after the author's death as most other countries. Jackaranga 20:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't conclusive. Even if it was published 1897, the author could easily have lived past 1937. If they were 20 upon publication, and lived to 70, it will be copyrighted until 2017. Superm401 - Talk 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was published in 1897, how could someone who died in 1857 be the author? Superm401 - Talk 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's the date of the second edition. See here. Angus McLellan (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kept and marked as reviewed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 4 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no reason given that it's public domain, the website source says it is believed to be pd but does not look authoritative Calliopejen1 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Marked as no source, since page doesn't note author. Superm401 - Talk 01:38, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no reason given that it's public domain, the website source says it is believed to be pd but does not look authoritative Calliopejen1 00:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No source since author missing. Superm401 - Talk 01:41, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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; file is tagged as non-free.-FASTILY (TALK) 21:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1929 photo, no reason given to make it PD Calliopejen1 00:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image now has a good fair use rationale. Superm401 - Talk 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by DarkFalls (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
subject lived until 1942, no reason given that image is PD Calliopejen1 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been deleted here. Now being pulled from Commons; nominated there. Superm401 - Talk 01:49, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by DarkFalls (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no reason given it's pd, subject died 1926 Calliopejen1 01:03, 17 September 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no reason given photo is free, subject died 1934 Calliopejen1 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged no source. Superm401 - Talk 01:58, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no proof of PD status, subject died after 1923 Calliopejen1 01:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged no source. Superm401 - Talk 02:04, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by RG2 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
actually a sound, but not sure where else to list... no explanation of PD and source is dead Calliopejen1 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Source link is broken. I have nominated for deletion. Superm401 - Talk 02:10, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I7 by Hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
looks like a professional photo/tv screenshot Calliopejen1 03:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- took it from my TV, SO I don't know is that bad too?Thank you--Taulant23 04:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Taulant23, you get no copyright for the screenshot. So the copyright for this image belongs to the copyright holder for the TV show or movie. Thus, it is non-free, and could only be used under fair use. If you wish to do so, you must add a fair use rationale. Superm401 - Talk 02:14, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
looks professional, user has many other image copyright problems Calliopejen1 04:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged no source. Superm401 - Talk 02:21, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G12 by Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to believe this has been released as PD Pak21 08:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as {{db-copyvio}}. Superm401 - Talk 02:25, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as G12 by Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image is not original. Sourced from Toyota promotional material. Original shown here: http://hwy12website.com/Japanesia/image-html/sera-04.html --Nemo 09:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as copyvio. Superm401 - Talk 02:30, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Melesse (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no reason given it's pd, 1973 photo Calliopejen1 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- image possibly by R. Dikeman, who has provided racing images before under free licenses. Also, falls under fair use as the subject is dead. Wait before deletion for image to receive a fair use rationale and an attempt to firmly identify the source. Guroadrunner 08:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- per GURoad. Davnel03 18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I uploaded this picture from another site when I could not find any author information. I believe the person who uploaded it to that site got it from a magazine that is no longer in print. Rdikeman 00:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this would mean that it's copyrighted and not a free image. However, a good fair use claim could be made. Calliopejen1 01:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update -- a fair use rationale has been added. Guroadrunner 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this would mean that it's copyrighted and not a free image. However, a good fair use claim could be made. Calliopejen1 01:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed, license updated, now fair-use in François Cevert. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 5 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no reason given for PD, subject died 1946 Calliopejen1 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as no source. Superm401 - Talk 02:35, 2 November 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
originally attributed to the associated press, then changed to roderick santos Calliopejen1 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a mistake in labelling but this is indeed my work. There was an existing image taken by Associated Press but I replaced it with a photo I took. SHE IS MY BOSS!!!! I work with her everyday! I see her everyday! As well as other interpreters. I was only not able to change the image name because there is no MOVE button on wikipedia for images. - Dragonbite 23:22, 17 September 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
_013.jpg){kind=link}
Obvious copyright violation, the uploader is lying as he did with the other images he uploaded, this is not PD-self Jackaranga 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_013.jpg){kind=link}
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
_026.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader lying about the license. Jackaranga 20:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_026.jpg){kind=link}
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lying again about this being a PD image. Jackaranga 20:05, 17 September 2007 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
_004.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader giving false licensing information again. Jackaranga 20:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_004.jpg){kind=link}
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.