Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/08/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive August 10th, 2008
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Wrong licence, copyright violation --85.177.43.140 21:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completed by Cbrown1023 talk 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Rocket000: Copyright violation

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Nominated for deletion, later speedy deleted by User:Herbythyme.


Deleted by Herbythyme: User request

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I want to wait till the actual album releases --FahdAlvi 02:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completed by Cbrown1023 talk 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. No fair use on Commons.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

the builder of the sphere did not allow me to post this media by hindsight --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Themonkofthetrueschool (talk • contribs)

Completing deletion request for User:Themonkofthetrueschool Superm401 - Talk 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Meant to give this a more descriptive name. Will complete the upload as Image:Whataroa River mouth.jpg instead. --Gadfium (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


'Deleted by Bayo: Author requested deletion or blanked page: content was: '{{db|Meant to give this a more descriptive name. Will complete the upload as Image:Whataroa River mouth.jpg instead.}} {{Information |Description = The Whata...' (and the only contributor was

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Duplicate, wrong name image:Georgia, Ossetia, Russia and Abkhazia (pl).svg Bandurr (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the debate. Add {{bad name|name}} template to the duplicate image next time. I did it for you.--Natl1 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cecil (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

1) this is a copyright violation on flickr (see author's other pictures), 2) a privacy rights violation (look at the picture closely) which violates both human dignity and is under questionable legal standing. Patstuart (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand, the author on Flickr is me, why would it be violation? I looked at the picture, so what "privacy rights violation" really means? Her outfit? Veeboy (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in the webside are same type of picture ?.

in page are same picture also ?.

If the picture are your taken, please donload new version with bigger size ( more pixels ) and EXIF-information

with those information my opinion are, please delete --Motopark (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image was originally posted to Flickr by HiM :x at http://flickr.com/photos/9202020@N04/2733716349. It was reviewed on 06:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC) by FlickreviewR, and confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0.Veeboy (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Getty Images Kimse (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Wrong Image For Tags Sexykay313 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Want to give it a better description, will re-upload Sexykay313 (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Kimse (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative work. Original image has been deleted because of copyvio. Avron (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete deleted image was image:Colt Python - PE.jpg --Mardetanha talk 07:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Agree w/ above, unless additional info and verification/permissions is provided. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Kimse (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative work. Original image has been deleted because of copyvio. Avron (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree w/ above, unless additional info and verification/permissions is provided. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Kimse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Source and author unknown. It's unlikely that the uploader ist the author. Avron (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete--Mardetanha talk 07:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Agree w/ above, unless additional info and verification/permissions is provided. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Agree because it's also too small! --Ricce (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete A lot of better pictures are present in Commons !!--150.217.45.98 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Kimse (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is no evidence that the source allows this licensing. Avron (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Copyright © 1999-2008 GB Investments, Inc. "GunBroker.com", the bullet logo, and "The Bidding Starts Now" are registered trademarks of GB Investments, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. so it is copyrighted --Mardetanha talk 07:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Agree w/ above, unless additional info and verification/permissions is provided. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Kimse (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unclear situation of source, author and permission. This informations are not accesible. Avron (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Kimse (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Cannot confirm source from US Navy --Sv1xv (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website where the image is hosted, says "© Michael W. Pocock and MaritimeQuest.com 2005 - 2008"[1]. --Túrelio (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because M.W. Pocock put a copyright notice on his web pages, it does not mean he is the creator or copyright owner of the pictures. Most likely this picture was created and released by the US Navy. However I would like it deleted because its PD status is not easily proven. The picture also exists here: http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/36870
Sv1xv (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the photo obviously was taken from aboard the US ship, it should really be created by personnel of the US Navy. However, how can www.militaryimages.net put their URL as watermark in that image? That smells like (attempt of) copyfraud.

Hah, I saved the image from www.militaryimages.net locally and looked into the IPTC data:
1) Caption:

  • Caption: 020510-N-6492H-503 At sea aboard USS Seattle (AOE 3) May 10, 2002 -- The Greek frigate, HS Psara (F 454), receives fuel during an underway replenishment with the fast combat support ship, USS Seattle. Seattle and Helicopter Combat Support Squadron Six (HC-6) Detachment Four supply the Kennedy battle group, and other coalition forces, operating in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. U.S. Navy photo by PhotographerÕs Mate 1st Class Jim Hampshire. (RELEASED)
  • Caption writer: LCDR P."C" Jensen, Dep. Director
  • Headline: Enduring Freedom
  • Special instructions: Photo Released by LTJG Gadd USS Seattle Public Affairs Officer

2) Categories:

  • Supplemental categories: (202) 685-6687 / 6692 (Fax) NavyNewsPhoto@HQ.Navy.Mil UNCLASSIFIED

3) Credits:

  • Byline: PH1(NAO) Jim Hampshire
  • Byline title: U.S. Navy Photo
  • Source: CHINFO, Navy Visual News Service

4) Origin:

  • Object name: 020510-N-6492H-503
  • City: USS Seattle (AOE 3)
  • Original transmission reference: USS Seattle/ HS Psara

Hope that helps. --Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It helps alot, thank you very much for the detective work. The picture is obviously PD and whoever has placed their copyright notes on it did it illegally. I copied some of the original info in the summary and, if you agree, I shall add the proper tag {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Sv1xv (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you agree. Of course, just do it. Besides, I've no knowledge about the PD/US-mil. tags. --Túrelio (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Taken from http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=1551 .S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Jim Hampshire.Kimse (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I'm the owner and didn't like the JPG version, so I replaced it with a PNG version --Adail.retamal (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Kimse (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image has wrong title, I.B. Mazuranica is another person. There is similar image with right title: Image:MarijaJurićZagorka.jpg. --Dalibor Bosits (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. Kimse (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Duplicated: Image:Provincia de Las Palmas - Bandera.svg HansenBCN (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Kimse (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copyright status unknown Michiel1972 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

University logo is not a government symbol Lokal_Profil 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The university has got a long history, so the logo may qualify as pd-old. I looked onthe english website for some information about the logo, but didn't find something usefull. Maybe there's something hidden in the polish part... --Isderion (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the seal is old this particular representation of it looks quite modern. An image of the old representation of it might be PD-old though. /Lokal_Profil 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. COM:PRP MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

(load a better one Image:Siege Bell-Memorial (Valletta).jpg) --ERWEH (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "In category Unknown as of 6 September 2008; missing license/permission/source information". using TW

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Commons:Derivative work: text is long enough to be copyrightable. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Another better, sourced and categorized: Image:Provincia de Granada - Bandera.svg HansenBCN (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.Christian 10:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This is not a legal act, a document published by the Czech republic's parliament, a flag or coats of arms or a municipal chronicle. Thuresson (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, as an official portrait of the president of the Republic, an official work and is in the public domain. --Diligent (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright, Act, 07/04/2000, No. 121 doesn't mention official portraits being exempt from copyright protection. Why do you believe this is an official work in the first place? Thuresson (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Source claims copyright, and we would need more evidence that this actually is an official document exempted by the Copyright Act. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wax scupltures = art work -> this = derivative work. Megapixie (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Image:The Beatles wax dummes.jpg Megapixie (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. OK under HK (and UK) law, as covered by FOP assuming a permanent exhibit. This image has a HK tag on the Flickr source, whereas Image:The Beatles wax dummes.jpg has a London tag. Both should be ok, anyway. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Duplicated, there is another existing and better done: Image:Flag of Huesca (province).svg HansenBCN (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No evidence of first publication to support the PD claim. LX (talk, contribs) 09:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 11:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I guess wrong Author and Permission. Martin may be the photographer. Permission may be pd-old. Avron (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi, Yes I took the photo of this colt overview, it is kind of a poster glued on a wooden plate which I received from a friend's father app. 20 years ago, and he owned it for a good 30 years. I have had a close look to that thing and I found no prints of a copyright holder. So if you need to change the permission type please tell me what to do. --194.48.128.75 07:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to say when the poster has been created? I count now 20 + 30 = 50 Years ago. --Avron (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to delet it: The poster doesn’t show correct Colt revolvers and descriptions. Two of the revolvers, (Griswold and Grier) are not Colts. The Root Colt is not cal .36, but cal .28. The Mod Scout 1881 is a non-existing invention; never made by Colt’s. The Police Mod cal .44 was never made in this caliber, it's caliber was .36.Hmaag (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. No proof that the poster is in the public domain.Trixt (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Series by Nyo II

[edit]

Motivations: Permission on Photobucket no longer available.


Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

All images uploaded by User:Nora Switz

[edit]
see also uploads by User:Nora2

I’m concerned about the single purpose (which appears to be uploading labia photos) of this user account in combination with the user name. The user name, Nora Switz, seems to indicate the user is female, and the user has claimed authorship of the images they’ve uploaded, yet the placement of the distinctly male 'helping hands' Image:Entfernung der Schamlippen C02.jpg in the photos seem to belong to the person operating the camera. If the person taking the photo is male, why would they choose what seems to be a real woman’s name for their user name and upload only before and after photos of a labiaplasty? My concern is this account might have been created using the subject’s real name in an attempt to disparage her. Of course, we have no way of knowing if the uploader is Nora Switz, just as we have no way of knowing who any user is, however, when it comes to photos such as these, I think we need to be more sensitive than usual. Also, when the name Nora Switz is googled, Image:Entfernung_der_Schamlippen_B04.jpg is the second result listed. I’d be horrified if my name were googled and any of these photos were the resulting link, regardless of whether or not the subject is stated or implied to be me. I’d be happy to see these photos deleted and ask this user to upload again some of the better quality photos using a different user name. Brynn (talk!) 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Brynn. These are highly sensitive images which are presumably uploaded by Nora Switz herself. If we don't hear from the uploader or there's still no opposition on this deletion request, I'll start deleting them in a few days. --Kimse (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Brynn should be horrified in that moment, when a user uploads his labia including his real address, but not before. Being amused would be an alternative too.  Keep Mutter Erde (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete A person named Nora Switz could be anyone, like an ex girlfriend/wife. The photographer is a male as it might be obvious from some of the images with the photographer's hands in the frame. Like Brynn, I suggest the user upload the images under a different name. The nomination has been active for more than 2 weeks and the uploader did not clarify our concerns about the personal privacy of Nora Switz. --Kimse (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. The uploader uses two usernames - User:Nora Switz and User:Nora2. Since we didn't hear back from the uploader regarding the use of the first and last names for these images, I suggest him/her to upload them under the second username if desired. Kimse (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I restored the old deletion request that had been commented out ([2]) --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that this is a work created by the United Kingdom Government, so the copyright status is unclear. Has been deleted before, but was uploaded again only a week later. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly originally not a UK Government photo, as it is a photo taken by German war corrospondents or an official Luftwaffe photographer sometime between 1939 and 1942 (when the Ju 87B-model depicted was used in combat). Maybe this photo was taken to a British archive after the Second World War. However, I just sent an e-mail to the German Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive) inquiring the copyright status of Third Reich official photos. I hope to get an answer, soon. -- Cobatfor 20:05, 10 Aug 2008
So as I know the Bundesachiv, you won't get a clear answer, if you get any answer...--Avron (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horrido! Well, I called the Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive) in Koblenz and was told the following: If the photo was taken by the official propaganda companies the rights are with the German State. But, you have to find out first, who has the rights on this particular photo. The Bundesarchiv has about 1.5 mio. photos of about 3 mio. taken. The rest went up in flames or is somewhere else. If the copyright lies with the Bundesarchiv, you can use 50 dpi-versions from the Bundesarchiv website, but ONLY, if the pictures are not downloadable for others [3]. Otherwise you have to pay a fee (see "Kostenverordnung" of the Bundesarchiv [4]). If the copyright lies somewhere else (like Ullstein publishers [5]), be warned, as fees for misuse are very high. So, if you search in the photo archive of the Bundesarchiv for this photo, at least I did not find it. I did not find it at the US archives, too. Therefore I would recommend to delete it, as it is not clear where the copyright lies.-- Cobatfor 16:48, 18 Aug 2008 (CEST)

  •  Delete for the reasons given above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The Bundesarchiv still lives in the last millenium. --Avron (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I am named as the original uploader, but that was not this copy of the image but a pure monochrome one. I never claimed it was a UK government image, in AFP it was credited "Courtesy of 'The Aeroplane'". I don't know where the tinted version came from--Keith Edkins (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been asked for further information. This old version is the version I uploaded. I presume Cobatfor found the tinted version, I have no knowledge of its source. AFP = Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, a series of seven books published 1941-47, "Compiled by H.J. Cooper & O.G. Thetford, Edited by D.A. Russell A.M.I.Mech.E". "The Aeroplane" was a monthly magazine[6].--Keith Edkins (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I found the coloured version of the above picture here [7]. No source is given, but it is certainly the same as originally uploaded by Keith Edkins. As the picture appeared in a UK magazine in the 1940 it seems to me that it was "liberated" by the Allies and is probably in some British archive, state or private. However, this photo was certainly made by a Luftwaffe photographer and the coloured version hints that there are more copies around. Doesn't really help with the copyright question... --Cobatfor 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The primary object of this photograph is a likely copyrighted sign and its long text and pictorial content.-Natl1 (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+1, delete; fop cannot be applied. --Isderion (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Kimse (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]