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, again. — ξ^xplicit 01:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Previously listed at PUF here. The Flickr source shows "all rights reserved" and the image unfortunately is no longer at everystockphoto.com (I wonder if perhaps it was taken down at the request of the copyright holder). But basically we have no way to verify this image was ever under a free license. Kelly ^hi! 01:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the previous request. VernoWhitney is an administrator and OTRS member; I trust his judgment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2012 (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 Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BritishMuseum-barnstar.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Contested speedy - file is missing evidence of permission, and seems too visually complex to be PD-ineligible. Kelly ^hi! 01:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we get any evidence of permission from the artist. Might be possible to get permission by contacting the artist on Flickr.[1] The 3D and shading effects do not appear in any of the examples at Commons:COM:TOO#United States so I think that it is too complex for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. According to the Flickr profile, the one who made the image is from Belgium and it contains British elements, so I would assume that a tagging as the standard {{PD-ineligible}} is impossible due to the British threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've sent an email to the original creator asking her to provide a overt permission by OTRS email. It's been a couple of years since I spoke with her though, so she mightn't have the same address anymore. We'll see. Wittylama 00:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The response has been sent to OTRS (permissions) today. I'm not on OTRS so I can't check for the ticket number but perhaps someone else can? Subject line is "Pemissions BrisithMuseum-barnstar.png" Wittylama 10:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The OTRS permission for this image has come in, and I should have it closed shortly. Please do not delete the image in the meantime (I will delete it if permission takes too long to come back in). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2012 (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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homme and Oliveri at the Rancho.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to find this image in the given Flickr user's photostream, but his other images all have noncommercial licenses. Kelly ^hi! 01:58, 23 March 2012 (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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Listed as CC-BY-NC-ND. No permission. Kelly ^hi! 02:04, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bryan Webb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 02:08, 23 March 2012 (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: Free license was confirmed, file moved to Commons. Jafeluv (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:EHTC.5DPL Cylinder, 5-Stage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Since the cylinders exist this image is replaceable and does not qualify for fair use. Bring the issue to PUF because the uploader removed the delete tag. Eeekster (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2012 (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. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other known commercially available cylinders of this type, and no end users of this type of cylinder have yet to upload a photo. Consequently, this image is not replaceable with a non-copywritten image, as no such non-copywritten image is available for upload. George Vasell (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cylinder on the photo appears to exist. Non-free photos of people still alive are generally not accepted because the people still exist and photos can be taken of them. Isn't this also the case here? That is, isn't it possible to travel to the cylinder on the photo and take a photo of it? It doesn't matter if you and the cylinder are on different continents; someone else could take the photo for you. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Simple case of copyvio of this image on this page. It should be easy enough to find a free photo. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avner Strauss Friends of the Rhino 2004, DVD אבנר שטראוס החברים של הקרנף .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 21#File:Avner Strauss Friends of the Rhino 2004, CD אבנר שטראוס החברים של הקרנף.jpg. There are minor differences, so the image might be ineligible for F1 deletion. Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dennis Genpo Merzel at Upaya Zen Center.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Orphaned. Kelly ^hi! 13:05, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clyde Carson with fans in Oakland, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 13:30, 23 March 2012 (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: delete all. — ξ^xplicit 01:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:GZTVtower Oct07.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

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

File:CWTC3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Burjdubai oct07.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Four images by the same uploader, all claimed to be own work. Uploader blocked for uploading copyvios. Three of them have EXIF and all indicate different camera models. The fourth one has no EXIF. Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taylor Lautner July 14 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 13:38, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dianetics tent.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 13:40, 23 March 2012 (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 as F11 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Commando.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• EXIF data shows: "Handout photo dated October 17, 2006, of Royal Marines from 42 Commando mannig the weapon systems (GPMG and 0.5 Heavy Machine Gun) in a WIMIK as they fire down the range in Gereshk, Southern Afghanistan. PRESS ASSOCIAITON Photo. Issue date: Thursday October 19, 2006. Their mission is to help restore stability to the war torn province. Photo credit should read: Sean Clee/MoD Crown Copyright/PA." [Original spelling]. The permission attached at upload to WP appears incorrect. Old Moonraker (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In addition to it coming from the BBC's website, there's the small matter of the uploader being very confused about dates. On the image data he says 2010, on the image caption in an article he says 2010, and even in an edit summary he says 2010. Yet the image is from 2006. If the uploader wants to assert he is indeed award winning photographer Sean Clee then he can so do to the satisfaction of OTRS (or whatever its called these days), until that happens this image is a copyvio uploaded with a false licence. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also note that it is tagged as no permission, so it may be deleted in four days. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:HarazRoad2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 13:59, 23 March 2012 (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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 14:00, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akira KTM HQ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 14:08, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opossum on tree .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 14:10, 23 March 2012 (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 as F4 by Samir (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unable to verify source/license. Also likely derivative of copyrighted work. Kelly ^hi! 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was CC-by-SA listed on Flickr when I took it from there five years ago, but I can't see the license now. Not used in any articles. Deleted -- Samir 21:23, 23 March 2012 (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, as the Flickr account and the image appear to belong to underclassrising.net. — ξ^xplicit 07:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Miners' strike picket.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence that the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder of this work. Kelly ^hi! 14:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence he's not either. The flickr stream is attributed to this website: [2] which has links to political activity and other things of that nature. This photo seems perfectly in tune with that theme. The photo is also not that old, from 1984, so there is no reason to doubt it belongs to them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Cloud Kelpie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See here: the uploader added it to the article mentioning Google Images in the edit summary. Copyvio likely. Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And the image contains meta data for the day in question, and a search of the user's username on google indicates he was a member of online dog community. He may have mentioned google images as an indication that if people wanted to verify that was the type of dog they could. I searched the term he mentions in google images and did not see any images resembling his.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dates can easily be edited using programs such as Exiftool. In this case, the information is obviously hoax since it says that it was taken 8½ hours after (!) the Wikipedia upload. The Google Images text looks suspicious. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia upload time is not the same as the user's local time which may be on the camera. You're wandering into bad faith territory here. What possible motivation could this user have had to fake the exif data for a discussion years later?--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uploaders probably rarely change EXIF data manually, but there is a possibility that the date might have been altered in an image editor, for example when cropping the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • By a person who doesn't know how to rotate the image?--Crossmr (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The rotation issue is because of a recent change in software, see Commons:COM:ROTATEFIX. Many programs (for example, to my knowledge all Microsoft and Apple programs) sometimes display images using the wrong orientation. Mediawiki fixed this issue last year, which changed the orientation of many images. Old images, and in particular images edited using Microsoft or Apple programs, now look wrong on Wikipedia because users depended on the Microsoft & Apple bug, although they looked correct before October or November last year. Try displaying the full-size image (Media:Red Cloud Kelpie.jpg) and you will see that it has a different orientation in your buggy web browser (all web browsers have this bug). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Missing OTRS ticket for permission. Kelly ^hi! 14:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Instead we have the actual e-mail. Let's go after a file uploaded by a long-blocked user from an old flickr account that hasn't been updated in years. Assuming good faith there is no reason to doubt the veracity of an image that has been in use for nearly 5 years.--Crossmr (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you tell exactly where in the e-mail quote you find evidence that the e-mail address of the sender is associated with the copyright holder? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  right here. Let's keep in mind that the user was notified that their photo was being used on Wikipedia 54 months ago per the comment on that photo. If there were any issues of that E-mail being fake, we would have heard from them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no e-mail address on that page. Anyway, the image can only be listed under a licence approved by the copyright holder, and no licence is listed in any of the e-mails, so the correct licence is unknown. Most licences require giving the name of the licence and sometimes you need to include a verbatim copy of the licence. Derivative works often need to be under the same licence as the original. There are many reasons to why we need to know what the correct licence is. --Stefan2 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MarkEubank.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I find it highly suspect that this image is a "self-made image" There is no meta data and the image appears to be taken at a television studio (see background as compared to new publicity photo). Addionally the user is a single purpose account. It would me much more likely that this is a publicity photo for Banks. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 15:16, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas adamson coumbousis d.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is the permission only for Wikipedia? The words "owns the copyright" contradicts with the public domain claim. Additionally, there is no OTRS ticket mentioned. Stefan2 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2012 (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 as F11 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detroit Book Depository interior.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Missing OTRS evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I included a verbatim copy of the email correspondence with the author on the description page. Is that not sufficient? PeterEastern (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Fyi, I have not heard the term 'OTRS' yet and I am unclear from a quick Google search what it has to do with permission. Possibly you could provide some information and/or links on my talk page? PeterEastern (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See below for the discussion about this and the image mentioned in the next section. PeterEastern (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2012 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detoit book depository trees.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Missing OTRS evidence of permission. Kelly ^hi! 15:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I included a verbatim copy of the email correspondence with the author on the description page. Is that not sufficient? PeterEastern (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The e-mail should be forwarded to OTRS, see WP:CONSENT. It is not possible to see who the sender of the message on the file information page is. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• For the avoidance of doubt, is it sufficient for me to email a screenshot of my FlickrMail request to the author with his positive response together with the specific form of words that WP:CONSENT requires with me acting for the author. PeterEastern (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • If the Flickr mail can be associated with the Flickr account and if it contains sufficient information, I suggest that you forward the e-mail to the OTRS e-mail address. Be careful to include any relevant headers in the e-mail. However, I'm not sure if it can be proved to 100% that the user accepted licensing under CC-BY-SA based on the quote there. It is also unclear which version number(s) it would be licensed under, so I'm not sure if it is sufficient. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2012 (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: relisted - Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 April 4#File:Battle 1.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Possibly derivative of non-free 3D art. Kelly ^hi! 15:33, 23 March 2012 (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. It appears that the tomb is in Iran anyway. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khwajuye Kermani Tombstone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unknown tombstone. Arabic script and Arabic countries have a calligraphy tradition so it is very possible that calligraphy is copyrightable in the source country. Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And: many countries in the Middle East lack FOP. The country of the tombstone is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if nothing else. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it remains unclear where this photo was taken. {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would not save it from violating another country's FOP restrictions. — ξ^xplicit 07:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I believe that {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would do exactly that. If the grave isn't copyrighted in the first place in the United States, there can't be FOP issues in the United States. Besides, {{FoP-USonly}} appears to be a valid way to violate other countries' FOP restrictions for buildings in the United States. One could argue that an unidentified tombstone is out of scope, though. Keep here and move to FfD as out of scope? --Stefan2 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2012 (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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob Brown at 2008 Olympic Torch Relay, Canberra.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unable to verify source/license. Kelly ^hi! 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Original uploader here: Delete. This image was uploaded by me 4 years ago when I was 16, at a time when I wasn't really familiar with image use policies. License is incorrect and invalid. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:15, 23 March 2012 (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⚡ 08:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seiko Lee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Is [3] ([4]) the same image but rotated and cropped differently? Looks like a commercial shot & it has a strange watermark. Non-free? Uploader's talk page also contains many copyvio notices. Stefan2 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Many? The first one on the page contains this comment from Uncle Ed I emailed the webmaster, and he is the Dmichaele whose page we're on. Beyond that there is one more notice. One is not "many". I'm also willing to bet it was copied from the same place that the first was of which Dmichaele was/is the webmaster. I find your deletion rationale to be highly exaggerated and almost misleading. Her name is not a "strange watermark" it's her name.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of "no source", "no licence" and the like (which are all copyright-related). There is a claim that the user is the copyright holder of some text, but in the end the article New York City Symphony was deleted with the deletion summary "permission claimed but never supplied". --Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2012 (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⚡ 08:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:David Eaton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Looks like a commercial shot. Also here, but I can't find any date. Might be unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is pointed out on the uploader's talk page he was/is the webmaster of the site in question as verified by another user 4 years ago. There is no good faith reason to doubt he was working on behalf of the sympathy and had the authority to release the photo.--Crossmr (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2012 (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⚡ 08:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:SL DE Side.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not own work? Many copyright issues mentioned on the uploader's talk page, but I can't find the image anywhere else. This is more recent, I believe. Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Many? The first one on the page contains this comment from Uncle Ed I emailed the webmaster, and he is the Dmichaele whose page we're on. Beyond that there is one more notice. One is not "many". I'm also willing to bet it was copied from the same place that the first was of which Dmichaele was/is the webmaster. I find your deletion rationale to be highly exaggerated and almost misleading.--Crossmr (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2012 (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⚡ 08:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seiko Lee, IPSF.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not own work? Many copyright issues mentioned on the uploader's talk page, but I can't find the image anywhere else. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Many? The first one on the page contains this comment from Uncle Ed I emailed the webmaster, and he is the Dmichaele whose page we're on. Beyond that there is one more notice. One is not "many". I'm also willing to bet it was copied from the same place that the first was of which Dmichaele was/is the webmaster. I find your deletion rationale to be highly exaggerated and almost misleading.--Crossmr (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2012 (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.