Content deleted Content added
Mosedschurte (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::I have no doubt that they discuss the post-Poland invasion coordination. They don't discuss this image though- this image is serveral men and a piece of paper. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 22:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
::I have no doubt that they discuss the post-Poland invasion coordination. They don't discuss this image though- this image is serveral men and a piece of paper. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 22:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''FIXED''' The image is from irreplaceable German propaganda newsreel footage and shows the coordination of German and Soviet troops in their September 1939 invasions. The descriptions for use in three of the articles are now contained in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:German_Soviet.jpg&diff=301604879&oldid=301594610 new usage rationales in the file just inserted here].[[User:Mosedschurte|Mosedschurte]] ([[User talk:Mosedschurte|talk]]) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''FIXED''' The image is from irreplaceable German propaganda newsreel footage and shows the coordination of German and Soviet troops in their September 1939 invasions. The descriptions for use in three of the articles are now contained in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:German_Soviet.jpg&diff=301604879&oldid=301594610 new usage rationales in the file just inserted here].[[User:Mosedschurte|Mosedschurte]] ([[User talk:Mosedschurte|talk]]) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
::The licensing rationale IMHO is quite clear: a low-resolution screenshot. Whether that's ok by US Law, I don't know, I am not a lawyer. But that is the only possible issue here, whether low-resolution screenshot is copyright ok for the limited usage this one has. As for "what men holding the paper look like", I believe this is not copyright related. That would be to pass a judgement on the content, i.e. to assess the historical (non-)importance of Nazi-Soviet demarcation lines, which we have no right to do as mere editors. [[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:56, 11 July 2009
July 11
File:Srinivas G Phani.jpg
- Srinivas ( | contribs). - uploaded by
- I am the one who uploaded it and now I would like to delete it. Thanks. Srinivas 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate.jpg
- Disavian ( | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned non-free image. Orphaned by myself as only use was in Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate which was an article on the rivalry, not the book and was thus clearly contrary to NFCC 1 and 8. CIreland (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Playgirlatkinscover.jpg
- Fallout boy ( | contribs). - uploaded by
- Two images have been added since the Playgirl cover was uploaded in 2005. The fair use rationale is no longer valid. APK that's not my name 18:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Alania 10 12.png
File:Nazi-SovietRelations Six.png
- Mosedschurte ( | contribs). - uploaded by
- Contains non-free elements. As a decorative image, this should be replaced with a completely free image, or at least have the non-free elements cut. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- keep - as the page clearly explains, the image is not "decorative" and the proper tags are included with each image. There is no problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- FIXED - To solve the problem, I just replaced the one non-free image within the file with a free image here. Note, this was after this deletion request was started.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The problem was fixed by Mosedschurte.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Sailor sculpture (Kirkland, Washington) crop.jpg
- Ed Fitzgerald ( | contribs). - uploaded by
- If non-free, this image is not justified. This particular statue is not even mentioned in the article. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
File:German Soviet.jpg
- Piotrus ( | contribs). - uploaded by
- Clearly unwarranted image. Yes, maybe the meeting was important, but what it looked like is not. We do not need a non-free image to know what men holding paper looked like. The copy-paste rationales are completely unilluminating, and fail to explain anything. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The articles themselves, at least the ones I've seen, discuss quite clearly the post-Poland invasion coordination discussed therein illustrated by the photo. Doesn't seem to be a problem.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- FIXED The image is from irreplaceable German propaganda newsreel footage and shows the coordination of German and Soviet troops in their September 1939 invasions. The descriptions for use in three of the articles are now contained in new usage rationales in the file just inserted here.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- The licensing rationale IMHO is quite clear: a low-resolution screenshot. Whether that's ok by US Law, I don't know, I am not a lawyer. But that is the only possible issue here, whether low-resolution screenshot is copyright ok for the limited usage this one has. As for "what men holding the paper look like", I believe this is not copyright related. That would be to pass a judgement on the content, i.e. to assess the historical (non-)importance of Nazi-Soviet demarcation lines, which we have no right to do as mere editors. Dc76\talk 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)