The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: concerns rectified. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: delete for lack of evidence of permission, without prejudice against restoration should the necessary evidence surface later. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
See the following:
![]() | This file is in the
public domain, because copy or scan of a banknote or stamp in Israel are in free use with no limitation. See:
commons:Category talk:Stamps of Israel PD Public domain false false Please verify that the reason given above is valid! Note: if there is a specific licence tag for the reason supplied here, please use it. | ![]() |
With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 09:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: Israel stamps are copyright for 50-51 years after issue per Public domain stamp templates and Stamps of Israel. ww2censor ( talk) 23:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Baidu Baidu Encyclopedia Wikipedia users in reference to self-publish the contents of the CC agreement (the "knowledge sharing"agreement, the localized version of the license agreement in China for the Chinese name of "Creative Commons 2.5 China Mainland version of agreement. " Attribution - Non-Commercial use - no derivative. See http://cn.creativecommons.org/
Sdrtirs ( talk) 09:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The file is copyrighted at Baidu Baike with a reference to Creative Commons 2.5 (知识共享 2.5 中国大陆版协议). This license permits the non-commercial use, provided the source (Baike) is attributed to. These conditions are met here at WP. This is NOT an unfree file! Shenhemu ( talk) 03:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
This photograph has been taken by my self and there is no copyright violation. As with power of sole ownership I submit to wikipedia with the free to use license permission. Mahizhini1977 ( talk) 15:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep. There is a photo in the given URL, but it's private. However, I have no reason not to believe that the photo that we are discussing is the one that is now listed as private. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: concerns rectified. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: delete for lack of evidence of permission, without prejudice against restoration should the necessary evidence surface later. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
See the following:
![]() | This file is in the
public domain, because copy or scan of a banknote or stamp in Israel are in free use with no limitation. See:
commons:Category talk:Stamps of Israel PD Public domain false false Please verify that the reason given above is valid! Note: if there is a specific licence tag for the reason supplied here, please use it. | ![]() |
With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 09:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete: Israel stamps are copyright for 50-51 years after issue per Public domain stamp templates and Stamps of Israel. ww2censor ( talk) 23:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by
SchuminWeb (
talk ·
contribs ·
blocks ·
protections ·
deletions ·
page moves ·
rights ·
RfA)
AnomieBOT
⚡
02:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Baidu Baidu Encyclopedia Wikipedia users in reference to self-publish the contents of the CC agreement (the "knowledge sharing"agreement, the localized version of the license agreement in China for the Chinese name of "Creative Commons 2.5 China Mainland version of agreement. " Attribution - Non-Commercial use - no derivative. See http://cn.creativecommons.org/
Sdrtirs ( talk) 09:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The file is copyrighted at Baidu Baike with a reference to Creative Commons 2.5 (知识共享 2.5 中国大陆版协议). This license permits the non-commercial use, provided the source (Baike) is attributed to. These conditions are met here at WP. This is NOT an unfree file! Shenhemu ( talk) 03:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
This photograph has been taken by my self and there is no copyright violation. As with power of sole ownership I submit to wikipedia with the free to use license permission. Mahizhini1977 ( talk) 15:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by RHaworth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep. There is a photo in the given URL, but it's private. However, I have no reason not to believe that the photo that we are discussing is the one that is now listed as private. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply