The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The image has a non-free rationale and a public domain license tag. I could not verify that the image is in the public domain from the source cited, or from Thailand's Prime Minister's website. Rockfang ( talk) 00:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
As a commercially distributed card by Topps, the copyright holder, this derivative work is covered by the same copyright. Topps, not the uploader, would be the only party with standing under U.S. copyright law to release it to the Public Domain. This certainly is an unfree image and the {{ PD-self}} license is inapplicable. JGHowes talk 03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The image is restrictive as stated [1] "RMIT University reserves the right to withdraw permission to use these images to any user if their use is considered inappropriate. Images may not be used in association with material that RMIT considers defamatory or damaging to the reputation of RMIT University.''
Which means the license it images is uploaded is not correct and RMIT doesn't state any licensing. Bidgee ( talk) 04:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The image is restrictive as stated [2] "RMIT University reserves the right to withdraw permission to use these images to any user if their use is considered inappropriate. Images may not be used in association with material that RMIT considers defamatory or damaging to the reputation of RMIT University.''
Which means the license it images is uploaded is not correct and RMIT doesn't state any licensing. Bidgee ( talk) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Keep, rough consensus, per Peripitus' last word. - Andrew c [talk] 00:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Unlike illegal graffiti which isn't covered by copyright legal graffiti/art work is/can be covered by copyright which would be held by the artists. Bidgee ( talk) 04:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
No evidence of permission. Ecosse99 ( talk) 08:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
No source and no evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 ( talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The image was uploaded from http://www.angelfire.com/empire/imperialiran/golestan.html. The respective link can be found in history of file. Respective question about file status to uploader was ignored Alex Spade ( talk) 12:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Listed as PD-US-govt and linked to such a site but there is nothing on that site that tells where the image came from or what the copyright of it is. Just because it is on a US govt website does not mean that the image is theirs. Peripitus (Talk) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Sourced to a journal article, but license tag says it's public domain. Shubinator ( talk) 13:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
See discussion on my talk page. Author affiliation and credit make clear US government applicability.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 14:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I would also mention, as per talk page, that the actual source is, or was prior to new editor arriving I haven't checked last few edits, the AIP site as per their own copyright policies.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I updated tag info, and can someone speedy delete the prior versions. There is an unsourced image of little value, a blank image, and a puppy picture. Thanks.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I obviously do no disagree, but in fact of course the photo is just as easily produced in other places.Sure, most of them would be other US labs but still... The AIP, being reliable, can be presumed to have checked the affiliation and the claimed affiliation is reliable for at least presuming the authors are for real and accurately attributed the work. I guess I could copy email to OTRS or whoever but I really didn't want to bother authors or publisher any more.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
An email with documentation was sent by someone to wiki address suggested on my talk page. Do they just handle the approval or delete since I would think the vote here would then be irrelevant?
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
So how do "they" stop this discussion which becomes irrelevant in light of whatever email they got? Anyone who doesn't know better can still delete it.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
OTRS has confirmed permission, so this is withdrawn. Shubinator ( talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
No evidence that Photographer died >70yrs ago feydey ( talk) 13:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Feydey (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Can be found all over the internet, needs probably verification thru OTRS, used here: http://www.news.nfo.ph/entertainment/entertainment-headlines/richard-gutierrez-unfazed-by-the-intrigues/ feydey ( talk) 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
G7 by
Feydey (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Looks like a DVD screencap. feydey ( talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The image has a non-free rationale and a public domain license tag. I could not verify that the image is in the public domain from the source cited, or from Thailand's Prime Minister's website. Rockfang ( talk) 00:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
As a commercially distributed card by Topps, the copyright holder, this derivative work is covered by the same copyright. Topps, not the uploader, would be the only party with standing under U.S. copyright law to release it to the Public Domain. This certainly is an unfree image and the {{ PD-self}} license is inapplicable. JGHowes talk 03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The image is restrictive as stated [1] "RMIT University reserves the right to withdraw permission to use these images to any user if their use is considered inappropriate. Images may not be used in association with material that RMIT considers defamatory or damaging to the reputation of RMIT University.''
Which means the license it images is uploaded is not correct and RMIT doesn't state any licensing. Bidgee ( talk) 04:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The image is restrictive as stated [2] "RMIT University reserves the right to withdraw permission to use these images to any user if their use is considered inappropriate. Images may not be used in association with material that RMIT considers defamatory or damaging to the reputation of RMIT University.''
Which means the license it images is uploaded is not correct and RMIT doesn't state any licensing. Bidgee ( talk) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Keep, rough consensus, per Peripitus' last word. - Andrew c [talk] 00:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Unlike illegal graffiti which isn't covered by copyright legal graffiti/art work is/can be covered by copyright which would be held by the artists. Bidgee ( talk) 04:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
No evidence of permission. Ecosse99 ( talk) 08:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
06:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
No source and no evidence that copyright holder has released this. Ecosse99 ( talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The image was uploaded from http://www.angelfire.com/empire/imperialiran/golestan.html. The respective link can be found in history of file. Respective question about file status to uploader was ignored Alex Spade ( talk) 12:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Listed as PD-US-govt and linked to such a site but there is nothing on that site that tells where the image came from or what the copyright of it is. Just because it is on a US govt website does not mean that the image is theirs. Peripitus (Talk) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Sourced to a journal article, but license tag says it's public domain. Shubinator ( talk) 13:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
See discussion on my talk page. Author affiliation and credit make clear US government applicability.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 14:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I would also mention, as per talk page, that the actual source is, or was prior to new editor arriving I haven't checked last few edits, the AIP site as per their own copyright policies.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 14:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I updated tag info, and can someone speedy delete the prior versions. There is an unsourced image of little value, a blank image, and a puppy picture. Thanks.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I obviously do no disagree, but in fact of course the photo is just as easily produced in other places.Sure, most of them would be other US labs but still... The AIP, being reliable, can be presumed to have checked the affiliation and the claimed affiliation is reliable for at least presuming the authors are for real and accurately attributed the work. I guess I could copy email to OTRS or whoever but I really didn't want to bother authors or publisher any more.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 17:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
An email with documentation was sent by someone to wiki address suggested on my talk page. Do they just handle the approval or delete since I would think the vote here would then be irrelevant?
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
So how do "they" stop this discussion which becomes irrelevant in light of whatever email they got? Anyone who doesn't know better can still delete it.
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
OTRS has confirmed permission, so this is withdrawn. Shubinator ( talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Garion96 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
No evidence that Photographer died >70yrs ago feydey ( talk) 13:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Feydey (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Can be found all over the internet, needs probably verification thru OTRS, used here: http://www.news.nfo.ph/entertainment/entertainment-headlines/richard-gutierrez-unfazed-by-the-intrigues/ feydey ( talk) 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
G7 by
Feydey (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Looks like a DVD screencap. feydey ( talk) 15:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply