Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

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. Licensed under fair use, no longer eligible for deletion via this venue. — ξ^xplicit 05:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlanta 96 Gold - Copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• derivative of non-free medal FASTILY 02:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever notify uploaders? This is a low quality image, taken myself. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this has already been discussed here. Also, your response does not address the fact that the subject of the photo is a derivative of non-free content. -FASTILY 05:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the rationale to the page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2016 (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.

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; deleted as F7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saskatchewan Legislative Rotunda, ca. 1925.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Possibly copyrighted historical photo by publication date (1925), and if so, fails WP:NFCC#1 FASTILY 07:53, 28 March 2016 (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.

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; deleted by BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parthiv Gohil.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Press/Promotional photo; unlikely that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY 08:01, 28 March 2016 (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.

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; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murugan Temple.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is listed as all rights reserved on Flickr. The user who uploaded the picture to Wikipedia claims to be the Flickr user, but provides no evidence of this. Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2016 (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.

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; deleted by BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Priroda.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Recent photo. Photographer obviously not dead since 100 years. Stefan2 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2016 (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.

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; deleted by BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gorod.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 2003 photo. The photographer obviously didn't die before 1916. Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2016 (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.

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. The author's identity has been confirmed. BethNaught (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Versailles bedroom.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Missing evidence that the person referring to himself as 'gaijin42' at http://jasoncoyne.smugmug.com/ is the same person who refers to himself as 'Gaijin42' on Wikipedia. Incompatible with WP:IOWN. Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I am the author of the photograph, and I have released this photo into CC. Photos were released into CC as a result of my offer on the talk page from 2006. Talk:Palace_of_Versailles/Archive_1#Additional_Pictures Talk:Palace_of_Versailles/Archive_1#Need_a_better_introductory_photo. If OTRS wants to contact me, they can, but frankly this is getting ridiculous. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at https://jasoncoyne.smugmug.com/Vacation/Paris-2005/Versailles/ A notice that several photos have been released into CC for wikipedia purposes has been in place for almost a decade. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2016 (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.

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; deleted by BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shangla 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The black border at the bottom suggests that this is a screenshot of an unidentified website which presents images with borders. Additionally, a website is mentioned on the file information page. The uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder. Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2016 (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.

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musical.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Overwritten file: two in one.

1. File uploaded by Madjidmad (talk · contribs): This looks like a painting made by someone other than the uploader. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader.
2. File uploaded by Angjelin (talk · contribs): This looks like a cover or logo or something. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. Even if it is own work by the uploader, it's still unlicensed as no copyright tag was provided by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file is poorly named, as I think the icon has nothing to do with the painting other than both containing the word "musical". According to google reverse image search the painting is from an artist named Majid Faraji. As the uploader here was also named Majid, it seems this is once again a case of Stefan2 perhaps being overzealous in deciding things are copyright infringement. [1] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's something which looks like a painting by a professional painter, the uploader needs to comply with the process at WP:IOWN if it really is own work by the uploader. Anyone can create an account with any user name and put any text on a Wikipedia page, but that is not evidence that the user at the other website is the same person. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The userpage of the uploader does claim that he's a professional uploader, for the record. I dunno how plausible it is, my sense is that it's no more and no less than any other {{self}} license.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, anyone can put any text on his user page, and there's no apparent way to verify that this information is correct. This is why we have WP:IOWN: in some cases, the user is required to provide evidence that the information is correct.

Another problem with professional artists is that they sometimes join organisations (for example, sv:Bildupphovsrätt i Sverige in Sweden) which manage the artists' copyright on behalf of the artists. At least for artists which are members of the Swedish organisation, this means that the artist can't license his artworks himself any longer but that all licences have to be approved by the organisation. Therefore, it would also be necessary to determine if a professional artist's rights are managed by one of those organisations in order to determine if a licence provided by the artist is valid.

Apart from copyright claims, it is usually not necessary to determine if a user is telling the truth on his user page or not. Most users tell the truth, but some editors try to game the system by lying about their identity, and it's a lot safer to demand that everyone proves who they really are. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2016 (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.

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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malaysia Israel.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Malaysia Israel.JPG. Stefan2 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2016 (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.

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; deleted as F8 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pigs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Overwritten file: two in one. The revision by Jameswheelerprofessional12 (talk · contribs) has unknown source and licence and should be deleted. The other revisions should be kept. Stefan2 (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~This is my own picture, and I am happy to still see it in Wikipedia. Helga (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 29 March 2016 (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.