The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belur.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is this high-resolution file the same photograph? The shadows look very similar. Maybe copyvio? Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2014 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giantdigital.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader may indeed be the designer, but as a logo for a company it is probably work for hire. Chick Bowen 01:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not unlikely that this is ((PD-textlogo)) and ((out of scope)). --Stefan2 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a UK-based company [1] so I think this would be ((PD-ineligible-USonly)) if kept per c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but the article this was intended for has been deleted three times for lack of notability [2] so this is likely to remain unused. January (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was tempted to just take it to WP:FFD as out of scope but thought it worthwhile to clarify the copyright. Feel free to close this and open an FFD instead if that seems more likely to lead to a resolution. Regardless, it doesn't seem like a useful image. Chick Bowen 23:31, 17 November 2014 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bikaner Camel Corps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• In the article Bikaner Camel Corps, the file has the image caption "Bikaner Camel Corps in Egypt, World War I". However, on the file information page, the uploader claims to have taken the photograph. This is contradicting. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2014 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denby Pottery mug signed by Glyn Colledge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a derivative work. Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2014 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Biography.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This seems to be cover art, see [3]. Stefan2 (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2014 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black & White.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The uploader links to http://homepage.mac.com/paisano77777/.cv/paisano77777/Sites/.Pictures/100_0467.JPG- which currently returns 404 Not Found. It can therefore not be verified whether the file is freely licensed or not. Stefan2 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2014 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boat.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The words "Permission of use given by photographer" implies that the uploader is not the photographer. Therefore, an OTRS ticket is needed. A generic permission statement such as a plain "permission of use" is not sufficient as it is unclear how it can be used. Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2014 (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.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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: Delete; deleted by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Although lower quality, this is the same photo as was previously discussed in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 October 2#File:Image of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.png and is still lacking evidence of when and where it was first published. It would need to have been published in Iraq before 1 January 1999 to satisfy ((PD-Iraq)). January (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Sick of arguing against the same idiot (Personal attacks :O) over the eligibility of this image. I'm going to quote in big bold letters as to why this image is in the public-domain, and I'm going to show why January is just wrong:

1. "This image was created in Iraq" (created means taken, not published in this context) indisputable, indisputable [4],[5],[6],[7]. Person is seen wearing military regalia, which further points to it being in Iraq. But no January, you're are absolutely right, the image was in fact taken on the Moon. You can clearly see he is wearing an astronaut visor in the image, so well done for being so observant.
2. "This work meets ONE of the following conditions:" -----> Please, read this point over and over and over and over again. I stress the ONE, because January still doesn't understand after so many attempts to have this image deleted, which just pisses me off. Amazing isn't it? You'd think millions of year of evolution would have bred out the less capable among us but I guess nature truly is flawed, and that has been demonstrated by January. Or that God supposedly created us with no imperfections. Congratulations January, I'm going to award you a barn-star later for being such an astute Wikipedian, well done, well done indeed for proving both creationism and evolution wrong.
3. "It is a photographic or audiovisual work that is not compositive (artistic in nature) and at least five years have elapsed since the end of the year of its publication." ---> It is a photograph, first of all. I'm going to let that sink in for January whose probably searching 'Photograph' via Google (Or Mozilla). Not only only is this a photographic work, it is also a non-compositive work. Explain? Well, a compsoitive photograph is usually more often than not, artistic in nature, as it usually two images superimposed upon one another. This image fails that criteria (as in the criteria of it being a compositive work), therefore it is eligible under the current point. I find it absolutely Hi-absolutely fucking-larious that a self-designated 'Administrator' is just so clueless on Wikipedia... Who in the name of common-sense is responsible for designating January an administrator? I'm going to ask bluntly. January, can you read? Can you not read ((PD-Iraq))?? It's a miracle you can even type let alone turn on a computer! And God only knows how many other PD templates January has clangered up in interpreting, maybe some one should comb through January's contributions to find out how many in total, as I guarantee this isn't the only one. But now, back to the task at hand eh? Image was first published in Iraq in 2003 by the United States Department of Defense [8],[9],[10], [11], which is more than 5 years ago, and as the templates says "This work meets ONE of the following conditions:". It wasn't published first in Timbuktu, sorry January.

In concluding, I personally am done on Wikipedia, just done. Finished. I'm not putting up with anymore bullshit from trash that can't understand the English language on the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA and waste my time in the process. I don't care if this image stays or goes, becuase I have uploaded it so many times but as stated above, gets deleted or pushed for deletion by some half-developed chimpanzee (January, you are not the only one, don't beat yourself up) masquerading as an actual human being. I have every right and then some to type such things, becuase I have literally invested hours uploading images that January and others press for deletion, so piss off. Oh my WOW, I still can't believe this: The Template is in ENGLISH, READ THE TEMPLATE!!! I absolutely welcome an eternal block placed against this account becuase I'm not dealing with intellectually inferior fish-people (January) wasting my god dame time when I take the effort to upload these damn images. Never, not even on 4chan have I ever witnessed such stupidity. I really worry for the human race if we have people so illiterate well into the 21st century, that one day these people might contribute to the gene pool with their offspring. God forbid it. StanMan87 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out at the last discussion, the local version of ((PD-Iraq)) is out of date. To clarify further, it was copied from this revision at Commons from 2008, but this has since been revised (see ((PD-Iraq)) for current version) and now states at the top "This work was first published in Iraq and is now in the public domain..." and that the condition applicable to photographic works is "It is a photographic or cinematic work that is not compositive (artistic in nature) first published before 1 January 1999". January (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so you were aware the template was apparently wrong, yet did nothing about it...astounding. You're a Wiki-Failure anyway. You would have to be the most incompetent sub-human ever to be bestowed the position of 'Administrator' on Wikipedia. Now give me back those hours of my life wasted through your carelessness. StanMan87 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2014 (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.