German or at least Europea copyright applies here: 70 years after the author’s death: public domain, PD-US and PD-Italy is wrong, this is definitely no „simple, documentary photograph without creative input of the author“ (or otherwise every image is a simple photograph.) Please see other uploads by user, he copies images from de.wp with false licenses (GFDL instead of PD-GermanyGov for coat of arms; claims PD for reproductions of three-dimensional works
Image:Lippi Madonna Tarquinia.jpg, a lot (hundreds ...) of GFDL images without author whenever GFDL requires an author —
Polarlys 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It is not at all clear to me whether this image is in the public domain or not. Perhaps you should list it at
WP:PUI? –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
After discovering that there is no source, and no reason to think Italian copyright applies, I deleted. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned graph that can't be used on content grounds (ie that it doesn't reflect a neutral set of data) and which is thus unencyclopaedic. — TewfikTalk 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Why do you say that it can't be used on content grounds? There's nothing on the image description or talk page to suggest this. Is the data inaccurate or patently misleading? Please expand. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
In short, yes, it is inaccurate and misleading. Consensus to keep it out of articles almost from its creation last year was based on its presentation of only one of several sets of numbers (
1,
2,
3). By now though, even
Hezbollah's own numbers have been updated upwards, so this chart represents no one at the moment, and so would be useless even if we all changed our positions and decided that we did need a pie-chart after all. I suppose it wouldn't be terrible if it remained to illustrate the discussions in question, but I nominated it because I've seen long "dead" issues like this become tools for trouble-makers in the past. Cheers, TewfikTalk 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan. Uploader has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet. Better images exist for an Eagle Talon, and this Talon was modified from stock. —
Royalbroil 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
No fair-use rationale supplied. Uploader has repeatedly removed {{
nrd}} tag, so bringing here instead —
Pak21 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
fair-use rationale supplied is supplied. this guy (Pak21) is just trying to harass
Dm2ortiz 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep: Notable logo. Dm2ortiz, examine the
CBS page for its eyeball logo, and configure your Conan logo tags similarly. Be advised that even if you get it right, the image will still be deleted if it's not used appropriately in an article (which it isn't presently).--
Mike18xx 05:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete as orphaned if nothing else. It's not clear precisely what "organization, item, or event" this is even a logo of. Is it the logo of Conan Properties International LLC? That company doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. —
Angr 06:17, 15 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.
Nomination withdrawn. —
Angr 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Far too large (800 x 1000 pixels) for a fair use claim. Uploader has removed the {{
dfu}} tag, so bringing here instead. (The same applies to many of the other images uploaded by this user; bringing this one as a test case.) —
Pak21 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
size is not against any rule. Wikipedia policies states that high-rez images should be used when ever possible.
Wikipedia:Image use policy Image size and image resolution are two deferent things. this guy (Pak21) is just trying to harass
Dm2ortiz 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. Please see
WP:NFCC, point 3(b): "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used". --
Pak21 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Publisher requires that copyright, trademark must be visible
Dm2ortiz 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The publisher doesn't get to define fair-use; the law does. --
Pak21 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
If the only problem is that the image is too high-resolution, just download it to your hard drive, use an image editor to reduce it, upload it again under the same name (use the "Upload a new version of this file" function on the image description page), and tag it with {{
Non-free reduced|~~~~~}}. Or if that's too much work, just slap a {{
Non-free reduce}} on it and let someone else do it. —
Angr 04:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The problem is that
User:Dm2ortiz keeps removing tags, and reverting the image to the large version (as he has done today after
User:Remember the dot uploaded a scaled-down version). Bringing this here was recommended at
WP:ANI. --
Pak21 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I have reverted to a small version and deleted the high-resolution versions. Dm2ortiz, do not upload a high-resolution version again, as it is a violation of policy. —
Angr 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Nomination withdrawn; with Dm2ortiz currently blocked and Angr having rescaled his overly large images (thanks!), I don't think there is an issue here any more. Cheers --
Pak21 20:49, 14 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.
Tagged as PD-USGov, but this is not a work of the US gov't. Source page has the following credit: Photo by Jim Williams, for "Joslyn Art Museum: Jazz on the Green," a Nebraska Local Legacies project. howcheng {
chat} 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Screenshot of a TV show showing an actor in character, used on the actor's biography page to identify him, which violates
WP:NFCC items 1 and 8. howcheng {
chat} 18:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Unencyclopedic private image, not used anywhere — Spike Wilbury 18:57, 13 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.
Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. —
Angr 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
too large for a fair use claim. (The same applies to many of the other images uploaded by this user; bringing this one as a test case.) —
Dm2ortiz 13:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy close: obvious
WP:POINT violation by
User:Dm2ortiz after my nominations above --
Pak21 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy close: I have seen a lot of the dispute between Dm2mortiz and Pak21, and completely agree that this is a bad faith nomination in an attempt to 'get back' at Pak21 for following policy.
J Milburn 14:49, 14 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, Unencyclopedic?, I don't think it was published before 1923 and I don't think it was the work of the federal government, since it says "Ohio County, WV" on it
MECU≈
talk 22:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic?, Absent uploader, fair use rationale given but under GFDL license, most likely a copyvio
MECU≈
talk 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Film screenshot (although this classification is disputed by
User:Girlwerks) used without critical commentary. howcheng {
chat} 22:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)reply