Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 October 5

< October 4	October 6 >

October 5

File:Lamalogo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uploader claims that this is the logo from his school. Does not have any license templated - would appreciate confirmation through WP:OTRS if this is not templated as {{non-free logo}} with the appropriate fair use Skier Dude (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not assuming good faith and frankly now it looks like you are just being over zealous. Another file HAS all the info and was reviewed previously, and there is DISCUSSION OF IT, and it was ok before, and you went right on and tagged it? I don't "claim" it IS from my school. Nysanda (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately assumptions of good faith don't apply to copyright — it's up to the uploader to prove that the image is free to use. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I own the image, I can distribute it as I please, so how do you suggest I prove I own it? I mean, aside from the fact it was teh logo of a school and I can easily prove I own that school? It's one thing to be concerned about a potential copyright issue, but when clearly it is a personal image and I , the owner, upload it, you can be going a bit far don't you think Nysanda (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia takes copyright claims very seriously. Please note that after all of this the image is still lacking any templated copyright license and fair use, which is what the initial concern was! All it takes after all of this is for the uploader to correctly license the image and add the fair use! The addition of the WP:OTRS is an "extra" simply an additional measure to preclude the image's being questioned in the future. Skier Dude (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are just missing my point? When the monastery picture first became an issue, we all discussed it like human beings sitting at the same table face to face. We figured out that parameters the file fell under and worked and determined it was fine to be here. Maybe it's just me, but you come on strong and assume everyone here is familiar with your techno-babble. YOu could be like Gewn or John, engage in a conversation and then help correct the problem, ie when you learn that it is public domain, or a personal photo, since you are up on the coding, you could add it. Instead, it seems like you are heck-bent on just deleting everything you can find. Nysanda (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2009 (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.

File:VB Sitrap.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image has an unverified GFDL tag and a fair use rationale; one of these must be wrong. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applogies, this was down to a misunderstanding on my part when it was originally uploaded. It should only have the fair use rationale and i have now removed hte GFDL tag.

Is there anything else i should now do?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, likewise for File:VBTiger.jpg.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:43, 20 October 2009 (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.

File:1018666623 l.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned file. only contribution of uploader. no encyclopedic context. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2009 (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.

File:Youssef.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: kept w/license corrected Skier Dude (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader is not copyright holder Rettetast (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion copyright tag fixed. the picture is a 118 years old Eli + 16:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly in the public domain per {{PD-US}} as it was published prior to 1923. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2009 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:10728-225-017t.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"i made it myself". But the uploader is in the photo, participating in a triathlon, so that is unlikely. Also cannot be fair use, as we don't allow fair use for living people. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (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.

File:Wanglumhoi.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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. Proper licensing provided. — ξ ^xplicit 05:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD-self seems unlikely (check file history). Image is claimed to be available since 1920, but no source is given. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know which "PD" describes it. In the past, another administrator just engaged in a normal conversation and we agreed that an image that has been published numerous times around the glove since 1920 is public domain and should be able to be here without issue. So explain what the proper "code" is and let's not deleted this. Nysanda (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image exists on many web sites associated with the group he founded (ie Pak Hok) as example http://www.pakhokpai.co.il/Images/WongLamHoi.jpg and http://www.pakhokpai.it/PakHokPai/pak_hok_pai_-_kung_fu_tibetano_-_bologna_-_storia_files/WongLamHoi.jpg. I am sure I could find many more examples. IE this is in the public domain. Nysanda (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that {{PD-China}} would be the appropriate license for this, simply given the age of the image in question. The {{Pd-self}} is defiantly not correct. Skier Dude (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THERE! That's all I'm asking for, if you are familiar with the coding, suggest one. Not everyone here is up on the technical stuff, I am NOT Nysanda (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to pretty clearly be {{PD-China}} per Skier Dude. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Kilali beach.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image and the others listed below were uploaded by a serial copyright infringer and sock abuser. I have verified duplication of some of the images s/he has uploaded from http://tamilnila.webnode.com/gallery/ and accordingly deleted them. These also need evaluation, particularly given the similar "shadowing" around the edges. This contributor has, under his or her main account, also uploaded images to Commons that were blatantly pasted from various websites under the claim that they were his or her own. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Included in this listing:[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.