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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Hood at Home.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Author and source are in conflict. Eeekster (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is clearly ripped off from a professional photographer. The graininess and the poor composition are a dead giveaway. Thank God you caught it in time. It might have cost the Wikimedia foundation millions in damages. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, MoonLichen, that's a crock of crap. This photo wasn't clearly ripped off of anyone. The photo is grainy because my head was cropped out of it as I was sitting right next to her. Too, the photo was orignally in color, not b&W. The plates behind her head were in the entryway to her homem. Michelle Harlow, the woman that took the picture and is a friend of mine, teaches at Reinhard where Mary worked. This photo has been uploaded on Wiki for years and numerous editors have looked at it as well as the status of all of my photos. If you all have issue with the photos, why don't you ask all the past editors, those quite experiences, why they never tagged it. And if you'd like, I can send you a copy of the dang photo in color with me in it.Carsonmc (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think MoonLichen must have been trying to be ironic (if not please correct me). I mean "graininess and poor composition a dead giveaway" for professional photography? (If so I'd be a very successful pro photog!) I also don't understand Eeekster "source and author in conflict." Could you be more specific? There does also need to be some assumption of good faith by the uploader, even in these discussions where some editors seem to always assume that editors are always trying to rip off somebody. A three year passage of time without a complaint also adds some strength to the uploader's claim. If this was really a rip off, it would likely have been noticed earlier. Finally, the photo was uploaded to Commons several months ago - so this is just the wrong place for this discussion. in short, close this now and if Eeekster has any real evidence, he should take it to Commons. MoonLichen should be careful that folks understand her irony. Smallbones (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by After Midnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mishna tora44.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Permisson not stated anywhere. Chesdovi (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2011 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.