orphaned image, summary and license from first uploader image but second upload does not appear on user's contribtuion list - notified current image's uploader
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is claimed to be in public domain, yet contains copyrighted content in form of a robot form the movie
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. I doubt R.C. Michelson has any rights to Star Wars. The image is only linked to arcticle
International Aerial Robotics Competition. Not only is the picture not needed in said article, it actully made me initially think the whole article might be a joke. —
The Merciful 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Picture has been removed from article. No longer an issue. Delete at earliest opportunity with my blessing.
Firewall 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Can't see a reason as to why the image would be of encyclopedic use, its orphaned and serves only to link through to a website —
Jamamala 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC).reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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.
Can this image be deleted right away? It was uploaded one day after the same image was deleted, see
log. It was deleted because fair use portraits of living people are considered to be replaceable. —
Ilse@ 16:28, 6 June 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Orphaned image, no enyclopedic use, only serves to try to get traffic to commercial website. Has been tagged by
OrphanBot —
Jamamala 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Unencylopedic, orphaned image. The article it was used in was deleted per
CSD G11 (blatant advertising). — Black Falcon(
Talk) 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately this is not the work of a USGS employee as tagged. The image is watermarked with a copyright statement and
[1] states unequivocally, "All images contained hereafter are the property of the said photographer." howcheng {
chat} 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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.
This a Commons image. Deletion requests must be taken to
Commons:Deletion requests. Nothing we can do here even if we wanted to. howcheng {
chat} 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per Parsecboy.--
Danaman5 21:59, 6 June 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
orphaned image, summary and license from first uploader image but second upload does not appear on user's contribtuion list - notified current image's uploader
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is claimed to be in public domain, yet contains copyrighted content in form of a robot form the movie
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. I doubt R.C. Michelson has any rights to Star Wars. The image is only linked to arcticle
International Aerial Robotics Competition. Not only is the picture not needed in said article, it actully made me initially think the whole article might be a joke. —
The Merciful 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Picture has been removed from article. No longer an issue. Delete at earliest opportunity with my blessing.
Firewall 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Can't see a reason as to why the image would be of encyclopedic use, its orphaned and serves only to link through to a website —
Jamamala 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC).reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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.
Can this image be deleted right away? It was uploaded one day after the same image was deleted, see
log. It was deleted because fair use portraits of living people are considered to be replaceable. —
Ilse@ 16:28, 6 June 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Orphaned image, no enyclopedic use, only serves to try to get traffic to commercial website. Has been tagged by
OrphanBot —
Jamamala 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Unencylopedic, orphaned image. The article it was used in was deleted per
CSD G11 (blatant advertising). — Black Falcon(
Talk) 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately this is not the work of a USGS employee as tagged. The image is watermarked with a copyright statement and
[1] states unequivocally, "All images contained hereafter are the property of the said photographer." howcheng {
chat} 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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.
This a Commons image. Deletion requests must be taken to
Commons:Deletion requests. Nothing we can do here even if we wanted to. howcheng {
chat} 22:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per Parsecboy.--
Danaman5 21:59, 6 June 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.