File talk:Automatic Pitch Turbine.jpg

The following text has been manually relocated to the corresponding Commons page and may be deleted KDS 4444  Talk  07:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

License
I am looking for a second opinion from an admin who is familiar with images. It appears the author uploaded it under a public domain rationale in the hopes of using it in the now deleted article Automatic pitch turbine. The tone of the article was very promotional in nature, but now that it's been deleted, it appears the editor wants it removed. Unfortunately I had to block the editor under WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. That being said, it was clear the editors intentions and I had considered deleting the file under something similar to WP:G7 but I was reading through WP:NOTCSD where it states, "Author deletion requests made in bad faith. Author deletion requests made in bad faith, out of frustration, or in an attempt to revoke their freely-licensed contributions are not granted ." Your input is appreciated. Mkdw talk 03:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is, as far as I remember the first time I've ever seen the "adminhelp" template used by an administrator! However, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be used that way more often.


 * This seems to me perfectly clear.


 * 1) The editor says "This drawing is part of a US patent. I have not given you any written permission to use this drawing for free download. So you better get this drawing out of your pages or I will sue Wikipedia", but in fact by uploading the file he or she did give permission for the file to be used, so he/she doesn't have a leg to stand on. Every time any one of us edits Wikipedia, we click on a "Save" button which is directly below a notice which says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution."
 * 2) Even if the editor had not given permission, I do not believe that he/she has the legal right to give or withhold permission, as the image is in the public domain. I have downloaded a copy of the patent, and checked very carefully, and nowhere in that patent is there any declaration of copyright, which is required by US law if copyright is to be retained in any part of the patent declaration. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and nothing I say should be taken as professional advice, but I have looked into the matter carefully, and it seems to me unambiguous.
 * 3) Add to that the content you quote from WP:NOTCSD, and that makes it clear that it does not qualify for speedy deletion as an author request (it is certainly "an attempt to revoke their freely-licensed contribution", and pretty certainly also an "author deletion request made ... out of frustration" too). Since I can't see any other speedy deletion criterion that is even anywhere near to being applicable, I don't see any way that deletion would be in line with the deletion policy unless and until it is the subject of a "delete" decision at a deletion discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your second opinion is greatly appreciated and I'm in full agreement. Mkdw talk 19:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)