The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
G3 by
IronGargoyle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Chowa001 claims to own this work. He inserted this image of a child into the Adolf Hitler article. Obviously, he has no credibility. One user has pointed out the photos are from www.dohacollege.com Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
G3 by
IronGargoyle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
see above, same reason as for File:Mohamad_El-Zein.JPG Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 00:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
EVula (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Contains a screenshot from The Simpsons in addition to a photograph; at least the former is non-free – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Sourced to a "Post Card" with a license of "Public Domain"; this doesn't seem consistent. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Mistaken use of the PD-100 tag: underlying artwork is ancient, but a separate copyright attaches to the photographic reproduction of three dimensional art. Obviously the photo is less than 100 years old; no evidence of free license for the photograph. Durova Charge! 02:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
False copyleft license claim. Source link states explicitly: "(c) Copyright Fameo Ltd. Use of Fameo jewellery designs for any purpose without obtained permission would be an infringement of UK Patent Law" Durova Charge! 02:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Kept; seems to be all in order. Stifle ( talk) 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Invalid use of GFDL. Image cannot be GFDL as it is a non-free image User A1 ( talk) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
R. Baley (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Claims that "only non-commercial or educational use of the file is allowed." Except it has been taken from a copyright Reuters image... see this US magazine article. Also see the image's duplicate, File:Susan-boyle-b 1.jpg.jpg -- Madchester ( talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Feydey (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Was deleted before, user undid the removal of the image and reuploaded, claiming that it is their image, however there's doubt for this, considering the image is all over the internet, many results in google image search Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 09:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Image is labelled as being created by the uploader. There is evidence of the logo being used for the college itself. Neu tralle 11:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Author listed as "unknown" - if it's not uploader's work, we can't verify the PD claim. ( ESkog)( Talk) 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Mugshot is unlikely to be uploader's own work; no metadata or source information to confirm licensing claims. ( ESkog)( Talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Unlikely uploader's own work; looks like a TV screenshot or publicity photo, and has no metadata. ( ESkog)( Talk) 15:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Feydey (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Almost every upload by this user has turned out to be copyvios. Nothing to suggest this is not either. Mosmof ( talk) 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
G3 by
IronGargoyle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Chowa001 claims to own this work. He inserted this image of a child into the Adolf Hitler article. Obviously, he has no credibility. One user has pointed out the photos are from www.dohacollege.com Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as
G3 by
IronGargoyle (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
see above, same reason as for File:Mohamad_El-Zein.JPG Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 00:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
EVula (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Contains a screenshot from The Simpsons in addition to a photograph; at least the former is non-free – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Sourced to a "Post Card" with a license of "Public Domain"; this doesn't seem consistent. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Mistaken use of the PD-100 tag: underlying artwork is ancient, but a separate copyright attaches to the photographic reproduction of three dimensional art. Obviously the photo is less than 100 years old; no evidence of free license for the photograph. Durova Charge! 02:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
False copyleft license claim. Source link states explicitly: "(c) Copyright Fameo Ltd. Use of Fameo jewellery designs for any purpose without obtained permission would be an infringement of UK Patent Law" Durova Charge! 02:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Kept; seems to be all in order. Stifle ( talk) 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Invalid use of GFDL. Image cannot be GFDL as it is a non-free image User A1 ( talk) 03:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
R. Baley (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Claims that "only non-commercial or educational use of the file is allowed." Except it has been taken from a copyright Reuters image... see this US magazine article. Also see the image's duplicate, File:Susan-boyle-b 1.jpg.jpg -- Madchester ( talk) 05:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Feydey (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Was deleted before, user undid the removal of the image and reuploaded, claiming that it is their image, however there's doubt for this, considering the image is all over the internet, many results in google image search Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 09:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Image is labelled as being created by the uploader. There is evidence of the logo being used for the college itself. Neu tralle 11:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Author listed as "unknown" - if it's not uploader's work, we can't verify the PD claim. ( ESkog)( Talk) 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Mugshot is unlikely to be uploader's own work; no metadata or source information to confirm licensing claims. ( ESkog)( Talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Drilnoth (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 03:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Unlikely uploader's own work; looks like a TV screenshot or publicity photo, and has no metadata. ( ESkog)( Talk) 15:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
Feydey (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡ 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Almost every upload by this user has turned out to be copyvios. Nothing to suggest this is not either. Mosmof ( talk) 20:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply