Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 November 9
November 9
[edit]- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:JimL Guitar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Photographer almost certainly unaware subject has posted this file to Wikipedia without photographer's permission. Incarnatus (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2010 (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 discussion was: wrong venue. This probably belongs at WP:MCQ. — ξxplicit 00:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone with knowledge of Egyptian/Israeli/Syrian copyright law please review the historical images in this article? Many of them are tagged as PD in their country of origin, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who uploaded them might have been a bit cavalier in tagging them as PD. Raul654 (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Acme12.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo inclusion? Could be fair-use if FoP not applicable Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:İzin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Given that the uploader other "CTVAA" images were "non-free" (see and that the files description confusingly mentions permission by government, I believe this orphaned image is probably unfree. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 13:54, 9 November 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Adam Matthew Digital.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a logo (I believe for a cooperation, but it is unclear) and therefore, if it passes the {{PD-textlogo}} threshold (which it might since there is artwork in drawing of the people) is not free.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- orphaned album cover. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 15:22, 9 November 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bfm cover300.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- magazine over copyrights are owned by publisher. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 15:59, 9 November 2010 (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 discussion was: keep, OTRS received. — ξxplicit 00:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Brian Hazard 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- IF it's an image from the artists wbesite - It can't be a 'self' license can it? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2010 (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 discussion was: keep, OTRS received. — ξxplicit 00:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Brian Hazard 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- If it's from the artist's website - How can it be self? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2010 (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 discussion was: keep but mark with {{subst:npd}}. Uploader is advised he has a week to follow the instructions at template:di-no permission-notice and email a copy to OTRS. It shouldn't be too difficult; the current page has the email address and a copy of the entire email; you can just copy and paste that, and OTRS will handle the verification. I don't know if "you can use any way you see fit" is enough to pass legal muster; that will be the judgment of the OTRS experts, but it's worth a try. If you have sent an email, please mark the page with {{OTRS pending}} so the item is not deleted while verification takes place.
- File:Double the phat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- The uploader has pasted the text of an email releasing copyright in the article page but has refused to copy the original email file to OTRS for verification and has instead recommended that someone else requests a new confirmation from the suggested copyright holder. One can reasonably apply AGF with a self release but this does not apply when the source is a third party copyright holder. Fæ (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had the original from 3 years ago, I'd be happy to stick it wherever you want me to stick it. Look, I'm not trying to be overly prickly, but I feel like I've put a reasonable amount of effort into properly indicating the license information of these images, and if after two or three exchanges, I'm still unable to grasp the process then either I'm a complete moron, or the process is too opaque to be useful. Either way, I doubt I'm the only one who finds this "delete first, ask questions later" approach to be obnoxious, pedantic, and lazy. Especially when a minimal amount of effort on the part of the deletionist would be sufficient to verify that the image in question is public domain. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also, the band's logo: [1] Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In previous discussions it would have been helpful to mention that you no longer had an original email. As explained on your talk page a copyright release statement needs to be forwarded to [email protected] in order for an OTRS ticket to be added for these images (see WP:OTRS). If the original is lost then there seems no alternative but to write again to the copyright holder as a cut & paste from the current description will do little to verify the source of the statement. As for being prickly, the text on the image page seems to contradict that, including the statement "some Wikipedia editors are getting pissy about image copyrights" in the text repeated on every image page and apparently sent to the copyright holder. (Associated images File:Ecclogo.png, File:Whipped cream.jpg, File:ECC promo bw 1.jpg.) Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I call it like I see it. Mr. Gunderson probably agrees...but again if you don't believe me, then how difficult would it be to ask him yourself? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If at some point you had asked for assistance when I took the opportunity to discuss the image on your talk page I may have been inclined to help out. You have been consistently argumentative and quick to ridicule the processes protecting the interests of copyright holders. By giving me the brush-off you effectively forced my hand to question the email quoted. I am more interested in spending my time on other worthwhile topics and as an OTRS volunteer helping others who truly are incapable of sorting these issues out for themselves. I suggest you consider the benefits in working with others and assuming that they may want to help you if you want to keep these images. I wish you good luck. Fæ (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be offended by the suggestion that I don't work well with others, but since I don't run around threatening to delete other editor's contributions, I think we've got a case of pot vs kettle. But thank you for the good luck wishes, although you should really be wishing luck to all the faceless noobs your copyright lectures and terse notes discourage from contributing. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides, you'd be argumentative too if I called your contributions worthless, threatened to delete them, and insisted you jump through the same hoops again for the third or fourth time. Put yourself in somebody else's shoes. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If at some point you had asked for assistance when I took the opportunity to discuss the image on your talk page I may have been inclined to help out. You have been consistently argumentative and quick to ridicule the processes protecting the interests of copyright holders. By giving me the brush-off you effectively forced my hand to question the email quoted. I am more interested in spending my time on other worthwhile topics and as an OTRS volunteer helping others who truly are incapable of sorting these issues out for themselves. I suggest you consider the benefits in working with others and assuming that they may want to help you if you want to keep these images. I wish you good luck. Fæ (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I call it like I see it. Mr. Gunderson probably agrees...but again if you don't believe me, then how difficult would it be to ask him yourself? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In previous discussions it would have been helpful to mention that you no longer had an original email. As explained on your talk page a copyright release statement needs to be forwarded to [email protected] in order for an OTRS ticket to be added for these images (see WP:OTRS). If the original is lost then there seems no alternative but to write again to the copyright holder as a cut & paste from the current description will do little to verify the source of the statement. As for being prickly, the text on the image page seems to contradict that, including the statement "some Wikipedia editors are getting pissy about image copyrights" in the text repeated on every image page and apparently sent to the copyright holder. (Associated images File:Ecclogo.png, File:Whipped cream.jpg, File:ECC promo bw 1.jpg.) Thanks, Fæ (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is also germane to the status of the following images (and all other images from www.evolution-control.com). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also uploaded a more recent ECC logo for which this discussion is relevant: [6] Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the begining: I uploaded the first of these images back in July of 2006--before the current uploading hurdles were implemented--and when I uploaded them, I provided the contact information of the image creator, which is plenty of information for any interested Wikipedian to make any inquiry into the images in question. In 2007, instead of using the information I provided on the image permissions page, an editor recommended several of the images for deletion and insisted that I had to provide more information. IIRC, I had to re-upload some of them, doing my best to categorize them properly. Unfortunately, when uploading an album cover, the choice is not given to list the image as public domain. So, I tried to work around this by adding a fair use justification. The apparently conflicting copyright information was noted at the time, so just to clarify matters further, I contacted Mr. Gunderson. Unfortunately, because the tagging editor had a dispute with Gunderson's wording, I had to contact the poor guy two or three times to settle the issue to that editor's satisfaction. I was justifiably annoyed at this, and the result was my wording about pissy editors in the email I provided. Also IIRC, that editor agreed to forward the email to the relevant wikipedia committee, and I thought I was finally done jumping through hoops. Now apparently, it turns out that my categorization was incorrect, and here we go again with the same crap. If Wikipedia policy is going to be picky about the precise format for permissions, that's fine. But, the editors who feel it's their duty to be sure the rest of us adhere to this policy ought to be the ones who are responsible to take the time and acutally implement it correctly, rather than bonking the rest of us over and over again for failing to jump through these overly complicated hoops. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:GrazeBox.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This despite the self claim is product/marketing artwork Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Logo qp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Unused image, which i am thinking is an organisational logo, More information required to support self claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dsc00132134tonemapped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Claimed as CC-BY-SA but sourced to skyscrapercity.com Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2010 (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.
Files by Tarekmech
[edit]- 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 all. — ξxplicit 00:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:InsideUCCuwo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- File:University hospitaluwo.jpg
- File:InsideUCCuwo.jpg
- File:Campusuwo.jpg
- File:OutsideUCC.jpg
- File:WeldonLibrary.jpg
- File:Saugin hall.jpg
- Image appears to be a resized version of one from this page -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Essex hall.jpg
- Image can be found on this page -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Accommodation elgin.jpg
- Image is a cropped from an image on this page -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:UWOcampus.jpg
- Copyvio uploader, files are ripped of flickr or other source. This is a selection of files that I think are not own work. Some files are maybe ok and not included in this request. --Martin H. (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - Given that the statements of being the uploaders own work is completely unreliable, I have no confidence that any of these images are licensed appropriately. The University of Western Ontario is not an obscure, difficult to reach location, so these images are easily replaceable with verifiably free versions. -- Whpq (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Stacee.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Web-resolution image with no metadata. Given the content of the userspace article, I think it's reasonably likely that this image does not belong to the uploader as stated. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:19, 9 November 2010 (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.