Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/10

I'm not sure about the license. Can a snapshot from a videogame be really free for any use? -- Meneldur (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it cannot. See {{Screenshot}}. --Tryphon (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, a screenshot from a video game is not public domain unless the video game itself is public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that an exhaustive search has turned up no evidence for a Malachi Throne as photographer or reporter as claimed here and elsewhere, and given that other images attributed to Throne have been discredited and deleted, this image is now highly suspect. Rklawton (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MORROW photograph is mine to do with aS I CHOOSE AS IT IS MINE TO PUBLISH HER OR ANYWHERE AS I CHOOSE....and this photograph and many others are such, whether Lawton likes it or not is copyrighted and owned by me and is marked as such in the U.S. Copyright office in Wshington D.C. and that fact cannot be denied.

Source: my private collection, originally from my uncles estate, the late Malachi Throne, (My Uncle, who was NO relation to the tv /movie actor of the same name!) he was a quite man, who often worked undercover and wished to remain anomamous, hence his lack of named credits being published on certain photographs, thoutgh he was a noted photographer in the Los Angeles, Ca. U.S.A. area, he also did often travel over seas, around the world, a generous and caring man who would do anything for me.

It was he who took this photo of of the Morrow family in Hollywood in 1962 for The Sun Times Sunday Section, Since my uncle Malachi's death, this photograph of this Morrow family is owned and copyrighted by me, and is a part of my private collection, But I freely distribute this scan of a "picture proof" having taken it from the photo-shoot's protective folder, and have placed this shot into the public domain!

--kathy-treks-on (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect for Wikimeadia and wikipedia I request that RKLawton be removed as Administrator as the real reason this photograph has been placed here for deletion is due to a NASTY paybacks from RKLawton who used to mix it up with me before he became a Administrator, over the Lincoln Death Photograph, RKLawton has tormented me for the last nearly 5 years and now has it out for me in spades since he became a "administrator", while I respect his office I cannot and will not condone his fairy tale storys he has made up about me and my uploads, he had agreed to allow me to repost some new editons of these pictures in only 3 weeks that were given to me from my Uncle's estate in 1999, and he was going to chill out, but now he is going against his own word to me on my user talk pages from just yesterday and today and so I have snapped and used poor judgement, I do not think I am feeling well enough to fight this battle anymore with the man who treats me as his wife and acts the part of a wife abuser, so due to Lawton and his unrelenting attacks upon me I am leaving wikicommons and wikipedia. forever, so I do not feel safe here with that internet stalker anymore, and I live in dreadful fear here all due to him and his many lies and false storys about me, he is on a power trip of insanity!

The MORROW photograph is mine to do with aS I CHOOSE , AS I CHOOSE LAWTON!!!! IT IS MINE!....and this photograph and many others are such, whether Lawton likes it or not is copyrighted and owned by me and is marked as such in the U.S. Copyright office in Wshington D.C. and that fact cannot be denied.

So.............THIS CASE IS CLOSED................. AND LAWTON LOSES THIS TIME, THE LIAR!

hIGHLY SUSPECT???GIVE UIS YOUR PROOF THEN!, BUT YOU CANT BECAUSE i AM RIGHT ON THIS TIME BROTHER!...AND all your Lies upon lies wont save your attemps this time Lawton, see folks?, he you set this whole thing up just because you lost the Lincoln Death photo ARGUMENT B4 YOU WERE AN ADMINISTRATOR SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO ME!!!!!!

--kathy-treks-on (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Multiple problem uploads with false source & info by uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted The uploader has clear history of false claims. Now indef blocked.MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ban this uer for god sakes 64.207.33.241 19:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep No criteria for deletion offered by nominator. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is "granted for personal use only". No evidence uploader is actual author. I suspect this is a re-upload of file with similiar name, and uploader picked licences they didn't really mean. Rob (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. was deleted previously under another name, and license is not commons compatible ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Out of scope and not used on Wikipedia. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, most likely a copyvio too, it's an album cover. --Tryphon (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per above -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uploader and author Not same shizhao (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Tagged with NSD instead. Maybe they'll source it. ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This file isn't a personnal work, but a simple violation of copyright (consider lower right) --Péeuh (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. it does indeed have a copyright tag on it. ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad file name: misidentifies nation of origin as en:Nigeria when it is a different nation:en:Niger. --T L Miles (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly to believe that this image was taken by an US employee. Source is very vage. High Contrast (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Confirmed source and also "Copyright JINSA, (c) 1999-2008. / All rights reserved." ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a probably copyrighted work on display - Cannot find the original copyright holder but as it is in colour it's not old enough to be PD on the basis of age Peripitus (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete As a portrait of a derivative work which is in colour, the image likely is not PD. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pdf format is of no use for images to be used in wikipedia articles. Has to be uploaded again in a graphic format. Túrelio (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... a new user Amazon01 uploaded the file as pdf, I reuploaded it as png. I don't know how to keep his info intact, but did what I coudl If you delete pdf, check the credits tosee if I did it properly. Also the derivative work uploader thingie doesn't work it keeps wanting the fist step over and over and over again. SriMesh | talk 08:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can re-upload a png over a pdf. You will have to upload it as a new file. And that file should be generated from the source, not from the pdf, for quality reasons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will need OTRS confirmation anyway. Compare [1]. Lupo 08:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "permission" field states "PD" and then uploader licensed it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}? The source website http://masterclasses.org.il/images/jacob_l.jpg doesn't state anything about licensing this image. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyright needs to be assumed without evidence to the contrary. Avi (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page where this image was used on enwiki has turned out to be a copyvio from http://www.hillmachinery.com; this may well be one too. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. copyvio from http://www.hillmachinery.com/images/stories/hillbuilding.jpg Avi (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

site does not source their images: Well, who knows exactly if this image was taken by an US-army-employee or of a Boeing-employee? The source cannot prove that this file is public domain. High Contrast (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No specific discussion of image copyright, and source website is copyrighted, so we cannot assume that this is free. A private citizen may have taken this photo for all we know. -- Avi (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unknown source, but released into the public domain :-) -- Mutter Erde 78.49.91.103 12:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nom. --Tryphon (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source given for seperate images in this composition (the satellite image is not "own work" anyway). -- Deadstar (msg) 15:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Tryphon (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

problems with inkscape -- better version comes soon Theredmonkey (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really need to have this one deleted, you can simply upload the new version over it (use the link at the bottom of the image page). By the way, the problem doesn't really comes from inkscape, but from the fact that you try to include PNGs that are only available on your hard drive. In the SVG, you have several lines like this one:

sodipodi:absref="/tmp/ocal-Q749OU-mystica_Coins_(Money).png

that make the SVG rendering fail. --Tryphon (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes I knew this (and did it in the meantime) but I thought it would be better to have a clean history which does not start with an file full of errors. however - problem is solved. So I thought I could delete this page ... Thanks for your efforts. :) --Theredmonkey (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. The image has been fixed. --Tryphon (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Source, no Author provided, marked as German official work (which is doubtful) and the image was probably taken from ebay (little camera logo on the lower right side). So, delete it! ALE! ¿…? 18:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not {{PD-GermanGov}}, missing essential source information. --Tryphon (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filename is wrong. Corrected file is also on commons. Batchheizer (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Duplicate of File:PhilonPraemGermanCohn.djvu. --Tryphon (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear copyright status. Source is very vague. High Contrast (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Granted none of the images on the source page load for me, but the bottom of the page does say " reproduction autorisée en citant la source" or according to Google Translates "Reproduction is permitted provided the source is acknowledged" --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read this, too. But the homepage looks not that serious: everywhere banner ad. This fact makes me doubting that this image was taken by an employee if that homepage. Furthermore the fact that the image cannot be loaded on the page doesn't help us anyway. As a result I think, even the homepage claims to have enough rights on the images to allow providing it, we must see this very critically. --High Contrast (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The source is unclear, and reproduction autorisée does not mean free to use for any purpose. Tryphon (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

certainly not a a GFDL license, the uploader doesn't give on it.wiki any (repeatedly) requested information 151.49.83.171 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: since February 10, 2009

The below images are about a Dutch company, Jumbo Shipping (http://www.jumboshipping.nl) I cannot find these exact images on their website, but similar ones are there. I think these might have come from there, or are perhaps part of an internal website (?). Their website is copyrighted. All uploads by this user can be viewed in Category:Jumbo Shipping. They are used on the company's page on nl: wiki, which reads like it's an advert for this particular company.

• File:JSbegin.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:JSengineer.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:JSgesch.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:JSjavelin.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:JSlogistics.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:JSoffshore.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:JStuitvoering.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:JSvoorbereidingen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

I do not believe they are "self made" & nominate for deletion. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And then I did find some:

[2] is same as File:JSgesch.jpg

[3] is same as File:JSlogistics.jpg

-- Deadstar (msg) 09:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted; half of these are scope infringements at any rate. per that and the nom. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is copyrights status of Argentinian stamps? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: Argentine stamps are copyright for 50 years per Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates, so this s a copyright violation. Ww2censor (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the reiserfs logo is free, even if the software is. Anyone knows for sure? Tryphon (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate image Flagged as non-free currency on en-wiki --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free currency according to enwiki Duplicate --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non free currency acording to en-wiki duplicate --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non free currency image according to enwiki duplicate --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz ^talk 08:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

marked as speedy by user:Jodo, reason: "Derivative" --Julo (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep fifteen hundred pictures from Category:With trademark (also many other categories, for instance Category:Carrefour, Category:E.Leclerc) are "derivative" in Jodo's meaning.
  It is special notice for "with trademark" pictures:
  This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark. See our general disclaimer.
  Wikimedia Commons accept this kind of pictures, with ® mark. Julo (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I did not mark the pictures as Derivative because of the trademarked logo. There is a picture made by product photographer on the tin. This is a obvious copyright violation --Jodo (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment photographs on the cans are not main object of this picture and is less than few percent of whole surface of picture. And what about photographs on packets in: Category:Instant soups, Category:Instant noodles (and many other "derivatives")? Julo (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Label design is complex enough to be copyrighted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - an image of a product not focused on a logo or any specific part of its design that could be copyrighted. Sth like "freedom of panorama". If we start to screen images looking for derivative works included in those, probably we'll need to delete all city panoramas (logos, commercial banners), or street views (as above) and many other. Of course I'd suggest to delete those picture if they were clearly focused on possible non-free parts of them Masur (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

marked as speedy by user:Jodo, reason: "Derivative" --Julo (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep fifteen hundred pictures from Category:With trademark (also many other categories, for instance Category:Carrefour, Category:E.Leclerc) are "derivative" in Jodo's meaning.
  It is special notice for "with trademark" pictures:
  This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark. See our general disclaimer.
  Wikimedia Commons accept this kind of pictures, with ® mark. Julo (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I did not mark the pictures as Derivative because of the trademarked logo. There is a picture made by product photographer on the tin. This is a obvious copyright violation --Jodo (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment photographs on the cans are not main object of this picture and is less than few percent of whole surface of picture. And what about photographs on packets in: Category:Instant soups, Category:Instant noodles (and many other "derivatives")? Julo (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Label design is complex enough to be copyrighted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I don't see nothing wrong --Adamt 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Keep - an image of a product not focused on a logo or any specific part of its design that could be copyrighted. Sth like "freedom of panorama". If we start to screen images looking for derivative works included in those, probably we'll need to delete all city panoramas (logos, commercial banners), or street views (as above) and many other. Of course I'd suggest to delete those picture if they were clearly focused on possible non-free parts of them Masur (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Jodo. Copyvio of the printed design on the cans. This is nothing to do with trademarks: there is copyright in the printed pictures. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per Masur and per arguments in " Comment" above. This is not a copy of printed pictures, but just partly view at them (you can not make an usual copy), like here, here, or here Julo (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Martin H.. Please do not restore images without discussion, list them on COM:UNDEL instead and don't override the closing admin's decision. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Old not sure as image looks like it was taken in WWII. No date, no source (it states "own collection" - I have corrected this on a number of uploader's other images), no author. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Most likely pre-WWII. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can some get the military rank and/or function from the picture, when you know that you can find the time the picture was made with [4] and [5].

I guess "generaal-majoor", what makes it made after 1-11-1938. At the second link is a picture of him with a lower rank, maybe is that one "safe". --Egel (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, too young for PD-old. Kameraad Pjotr 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on the image appears a copyright and an author that is not the user who uploaded the work

 Delete Copyright All About Jazz Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Der Urheber ist unbekannt und das Bild ist noch keine 100 Jahre alt =>delete. SteMicha (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Behalten/Keep wg. Pragmatische Regelung bei Bildern, die vor 1923 veröffentlicht wurden Die deutschsprachige Wikipedia akzeptiert Bilder, die nachweislich vor 1923 veröffentlicht wurden, sofern der Urheber auch nach gründlicher Recherche in Suchmaschinen, Datenbanken und biographischen Nachschlagewerken nicht herausgefunden werden konnte. Gruss, Linksfuss (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Das stimmt, aber dann muss dokumentiert sein, dass der Uploader auch gründlich recherchiert hat. Hat er das? SteMicha (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kann ich natürlich nicht sagen. Wie und wo wird die gründliche Recherche denn normalerweise dokumentiert? Gruss, Linksfuss (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.:laut dem Ersteller stammt das Bild von der Website von Borussia Mönchengladbach. Sollte man den Verein ansprechen? Und wie dokumentiert man dann die Antwort? Gruss, Linksfuss (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dann muss der Verein im Falle einer Bild-Freigabe eine ORTS-Email an irgendeine wichtige Wikimedia-Person schicken. Das muss dir aber jemand erklären, der sich damit auskennt. SteMicha (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep this file File:Rasensport MGladbach 1920-1921.jpg with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

„Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication.“ --Polarlys (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The caption is written on the photo, but not the photographer's name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two different things. Don’t understand me wrong, but your license template implied that the author never disclosed his identity and you checked this with a reasonable amount of research. --Polarlys (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is also used in the book: Borussia Mönchengladbach: Borussen-Chronik, p. 26. On the page where the photo is shown no reference is made to any photographer (no with kind permission of..). The last page of the book contains a few general picture credits, but they refer to private archives and the Deutsche Historische Mueseum etc. A search on the DHM webpage showed no results for Borussia Mönchengladbach and 1921. Does this count as a reasonable amount of research? Regards, Linksfuss (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The superficial job done by others does not legitimate us, to adopt this. Reasonable amount of research does not exclude some mails, some phone calls or some offline research. What does your research actually say? Someone wrote an average book without paying attention to credit photographers and other sources. (This is just how books for a general audience are written.) One of the sources you checked online and there is no result. Why? Maybe wrong database? Maybe this database doesn’t include 100% of the collection? Maybe there are other/better ways to tap this collection?

What could you do before adding PD-EU-no author disclosure? You could:

• ask the authors where this single photo was taken from
• contact this source and ask for details
• ask people familiar with the club’s history and it’s archive
• ask your local archive (exaggerated claim? No, we did so before and less work (mail) resulted in valuable conclusion, e.g. here).

Maybe you should take this into consideration before telling the world that the author never disclosed his identity although you don’t know anything about it. --Polarlys (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uncertain copyright status, probably not yet PD. Kameraad Pjotr 19:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]