Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Kellyhi! 04:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nomination.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (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.
Image source
here has a noncommercial Creative Commons license.
Kellyhi! 04:18, 15 April 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
While how the polls would look if it was "winner take all" is interesting, ultimately this orphaned and UE.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 08:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
KEEP. This is an accurate representation. Whilst the coat of arms does not any longer exist, this picture does accurately reflect the Heraldry and patterns of the arms as described in academic texts. ( Borislav Arapovic, Hrvatski mirospis 1778, Matica hrvatska, Mostar, 1999, ISBN 9958-9448-2-0 ) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DrHollisCollier (
talk •
contribs) 13:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Yopie 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Yopie (
talk •
contribs)
KEEP! We accept, I think, that the image is imperfect, but it is otherwise accurate.
DrHollisCollier (
talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. Note that DrHollisCollier's reference above is not even obliquely a heraldry, but is a collection of translations of a speech about peace, made in Bohemia.
[2] He's not made it clear how or if this relates to the topic; as per nom, seems like a hoax.
Bazzargh (
talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (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.
The result of the debate was The following images kept following license change by nominator to {{
non-free symbol}}.
Cannot confirm free license.
Kellyhi! 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This is an image of a military insignia which by definition is not copyright. What licence is required to prevent deletion?
Stephen Kirragetalk -
contribs 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
What is the license for Indian military insignia?
Kellyhi! 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Cannot confirm free license.
Kellyhi! 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This is an image of a military insignia which by definition is not copyright. What licence is required to prevent deletion?
Stephen Kirragetalk -
contribs 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Cannot confirm free license.
Kellyhi! 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This is an image of a military insignia which by definition is not copyright. What licence is required to prevent deletion?
Stephen Kirragetalk -
contribs 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Cannot confirm free license.
Kellyhi! 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This is an image of a military insignia which by definition is not copyright. What licence is required to prevent deletion?
Stephen Kirragetalk -
contribs 21:25, 15 April 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
says "self-made", but uploader has claimed
a logo,
a goverment image, and
a television image as being self-made. I think the uploader doesn't understand copyrights etc. This should be deleted unless we get solid confirmation that he personally took the photo.
Mangostar (
talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
says "self-made", but uploader has claimed
a logo,
a goverment image, and
a television image as being self-made. I think the uploader doesn't understand copyrights etc. This should be deleted unless we get solid confirmation that he personally took the photo.
Mangostar (
talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
i can't read hindi - did the uploader at hi.wiki draw this him/herself? if not, we need to know where it was originally from.
Mangostar (
talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete. Inside the image data (near the end of the file, offset 0x1e7f), it says this: "Created by Eclipse Digital Imaging for Xoom Software, Inc...Copyright 1997.". Google 'animated flag gifs' and the image is on the India page of the first site, and archive.org says they've had an image at that location since 2005:
[3]. Very likely copyvio.
Bazzargh (
talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Er, wow. Found the press release announcing Xoom's 1998 clip art library (including animated gifs)
[4]; almost certainly the source. Licensed as "free for personal, noncommercial use".
Bazzargh (
talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm not seeing how this is a particularly historic image. Replaceable by a free photo of a Samoan American drummer.
Kellyhi! 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Note that this is an "almost" free image -- it's licensed as noncommercial CC 3.0. Cheers,
Pete Tillman (
talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
sourced to copyrighted website
Mangostar (
talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
the image in question was contributed by the copyright holder. if verification is needed please email the copyright owners at support@hookah-life.com .
Mbeck00 (
talk)
looks like a promo pic (not self-made). if the uploader is the copyright holder, they should email permissions@wikimedia.org from an official email address and make a note of that here.
Mangostar (
talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Cannot determine correct license.
Kellyhi! 20:39, 15 April 2008 (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.
The result of the discussion was: keep as the uploader was a volunteer photographer and graphic designer for the now defunct theater company and is the copyright holder of the material. -
Nv8200ptalk 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
no evidence that uploader is copyright-holder
Mangostar (
talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If editors in good standing upload images as {{GFDL-self}}, we normally
take it on trust that they are acting properly, unless there is evidence to the contrary (e.g. a history of uploading images improperly). It is out of order to suddenly jump to deletion, without any dialogue with the uploading editor, in order to give the editor a chance to resolve the situation satisfactorily. This image should definitely not be deleted until that has been done. This applies to the other images below similarly nominated. Ty 13:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I disagree. All the images that I nominated are clearly copyrighted by the theater company, and we absolutely need OTRS confirmation that the uploader has their permission to release them under a free license. S/he has explained on my talk page that s/he was the their graphic designer, but these are likely works for hire (so the theater would own the copyright, not the individual) and we need someone official with an email associated with the theater to write permissions@wikimedia.org specifying the URL of each image and explicitly releasing each of them under a free license.
Mangostar (
talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The best procedure is to take it up with the editor in the first instance, before going straight for deletion. It is often possible to resolve such matters satisfactorily. If not, then deletion becomes appropriate. Ty 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
These have all been resolved now per discussion on the user's talk page. It appears he volunteered for the theater to make these posters. The theater is now defunct. It seems like he was more a contractor in this situation than an employee so work for hire would not apply. The uploader has explained this on the image pages.
Mangostar (
talk) 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
no evidence that uploader is copyright-holder
Mangostar (
talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
no evidence that uploader is copyright-holder
Mangostar (
talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The result of the debate was keep as the uploader was a volunteer photographer and graphic designer for the now defunct theater company and is the copyright holder of the material. -
Nv8200ptalk 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
no evidence that uploader is copyright-holder
Mangostar (
talk) 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The result of the debate was keep as the uploader was a volunteer photographer and graphic designer for the now defunct theater company and is the copyright holder of the material. -
Nv8200ptalk 14:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
no evidence that uploader is copyright-holder
Mangostar (
talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The result of the debate was keep as the uploader was a volunteer photographer and graphic designer for the now defunct theater company and is the copyright holder of the material. -
Nv8200ptalk 14:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply