Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Acather96 (talk | contribs)
Acather96 (talk | contribs)
→‎Media batch O: File:Hrazanek CEM46489213 112596717999.jpg has been reviewed and is believed clear
Line 1,189: Line 1,189:
*[[:File:Norton PillarOfFire 100 0871.JPG]] --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
*[[:File:Norton PillarOfFire 100 0871.JPG]] --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
*[[:File:Maclean of Duart and Morven arms white.svg]] Self made coat of arms on Commons, properly attributed. [[User:Acather96|Acather96]] ([[User talk:Acather96|talk]]) 06:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
*[[:File:Maclean of Duart and Morven arms white.svg]] Self made coat of arms on Commons, properly attributed. [[User:Acather96|Acather96]] ([[User talk:Acather96|talk]]) 06:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
*[[:File:Hrazanek CEM46489213 112596717999.jpg]] Image from findagrave.com, author has agreeded to license under cc-by-2.5. Have added proper attribution. [[User:Acather96|Acather96]] ([[User talk:Acather96|talk]]) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
====Additional review needed (NF or Free)====
====Additional review needed (NF or Free)====
*[[:File:OwensMichaelJ.jpg]] (<small>How do we know this is pre-1923? There's no date at the source, and the man died that year. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)</small>)
*[[:File:OwensMichaelJ.jpg]] (<small>How do we know this is pre-1923? There's no date at the source, and the man died that year. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)</small>)
*[[:File:Gaurdians publication.png]] (<small>What evidence do we have that copyright was not renewed? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)</small>)
*[[:File:Gaurdians publication.png]] (<small>What evidence do we have that copyright was not renewed? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)</small>)
*[[:File:Hrazanek CEM46489213 112596717999.jpg]]
*[[:File:Chamberlin.jpg]]
*[[:File:Chamberlin.jpg]]
*[[:File:Nancy Hopkins 04.jpg]]
*[[:File:Nancy Hopkins 04.jpg]]

Revision as of 06:37, 16 October 2010

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Instructions

If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal.

When every section is completed, please alter the listing for this CCI at Wikipedia:CCI#Open_investigations to include the tag "completed=yes". This will alert a clerk that the listing needs to be archived.

  • {{CCI-open|Contributor name|Day Month Year|completed=yes}}

Images

Two levels of approach:

  • First, sort the images in the unsorted number ranges. The top section is for images that are obviously public domain by age or origin (U.S. Federal Government, for instance) or which are used under an obviously valid fair use rationale for all instances of use. If you are unsure if the fair use rationale is valid, please do not move the image into the top section. All images remaining in the following sections will subsequently need additional review.
  • Examine the images in the sections tagged for additional review.
    • For free images:
      • If the image is claimed as public domain, is this verifiable?
      • Is the image properly licensed and sourced? Be aware of images that say "this image is licensed under X" without specifying who created it.
      • If the image is claimed as free license and sourced to somebody other than the uploader, is this verified?
      • See Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion#Addressing suspected copyright infringement on dealing with cases of possible image copyright infringement. There is no need to open a possibly unfree files listing. Administrators may delete images from multiple point infringers presumptively in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Evaluators who are not administrators may section images into a "deletion requested" section for administrator attention.
    • For non-free images, determine whether each image meets our non-free content criteria.
      • Note that Commons does not accept non-free content.
  • Annotate the listing with the action taken, e.g. if the image was tagged no source write "no source"; if the fair use claim is deemed ok you can write "OK fair use".

If an image is found to have problems, please move it to a section "Tagged for further action".

Background

Contribution survey

Wikipedia Files

Media batch A

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or free)

Tagged for further action

Media batch B

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

What does "We don't upload sources to prove they exist" mean? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means you can still cite the source even if it isn't accessible online; you don't have to upload it. Nonfree images must be properly displayed in at least one article to remain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media batch C

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch D

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear


Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch E

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch F

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

PUF. False claim of PD per publication without copyright notice; enlarge the picture and the notice is right there on the bottom. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every image from the New York Times archive from 1860 to the present contains that copyright notice when they were rescanned. The copyright would have to have been renewed before 1963. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|Every NYT article has a new copyright notice, yet you can't reclaim a copyright once it has expired

That's a possibility, but that doesn't mean that it was published without copyright notice, which was the license you claimed: Template:PD-Pre1978. Can you verify that the New York Times didn't comply with copyright procedures? Or that, if they did, that they did not renew copyright? We don't guess on these matters. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media batch G

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch H

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch I

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch J

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch K

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch L

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)


Tagged for action

Media batch M

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch N

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch O

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch P

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch Q

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content

Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch R

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content


Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch S

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content


Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch T

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content


Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch U

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content


Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Media batch V

Clearly valid FUR, pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Extended content


Reviewed, believed clear

Additional review needed (NF or Free)

Tagged for action

Wikimedia Commons Files

Pre-1923 or demonstrably US Federal origin

Additional review needed

Leave a Reply