Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 October 13



File:Cardinicaeser.JPG

 * 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. 

Kept per discussion below. Pete (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Cardinicaeser.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly  hi! 04:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * License altered to non-free and WP:FUR for article where it is in use added. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So are we done here or what? "Possibly unfree" is not really a concern anymore and no other reason for deletion has been presented. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the image's non-free use rationale is not sufficient. Specifically, the image is much higher-resulution than I am used to seeing for non-free media. I'm also unclear on why an image of a specific dressing brand (even if it does have the inventor's likeness) is needed for the general article on Caesar salad. -Pete (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss whether it should be used in the article at all I believe the article talk page would be the appropriate place. This isn't files for deletion, it's possibly unfree files.The resolution is the default resolution of the camera I was using, I don't know how to make it any lower. I'm also unclear on what is deficient in the FUR. We have a picture of a salad, but had none of the dressing without which it wouldn't be a Caesar. As this one is based on the original recipe developed by the dish's creator it seemed like a natural choice. In any event the stated purpose of this forum is "to ascertain the source and/or copyright status of a file." The license has been changed to reflect non-free status so I'm afraid I don't see why these other concerns are relevant to this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Pall hq photo.jpg

 * 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. 

Deleted per nom; no explanation given for dubious CC tag. -Pete (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Pall hq photo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No proof this was released as CC at  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lecrae Profile.jpg

 * 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Lecrae Profile.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is a publicity photo from the record label and is therefore copyrighted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

WHAT A JOKE. There's illegal material being posted and your best response is wrong forum. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Walter, I just noticed this. The closure above was actually performed by a bot, not a person. (This is the first time I've seen this -- it seems as crazy to me as it probably does to you!) I'm going to nominate this file for deletion in the proper place, and I'll investigate how we got to the point of bots closing deletion discussions soon -- seems like a rather odd choice, to say the least. -Pete (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't do anything about it from this website, you need to take it up at the website where the image is actually hosted. Therefore, there is no purpose in discussing the matter here. That conclusion is deemed obvious enough that a program can make the determination to avoid wasting human resources discussing something we cannot change. Perhaps it should also be tasked with informing Commons when it finds such things, you could take that up with the bot operator. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, I think you've hit upon the problem exactly: it's not about outcomes, it's about the service provided to the nominator. A good faith nominator may have no idea how Commons and Wikipedia interact; if he/she were interacting with a human, there would be some hope of learning what is going on. With a bot, it's just a cold, impersonal, and potentially embarrassing experience; not the way I want to see Wikipedia work. The bot operator is one avenue, but it seems like the BfA process might be more appropriate; there's nothing wrong with designing a bot that functions in this way, but for an approval process to approve it for use in this manner seems unwise. -Pete (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be a wider issue here, but the nominator in this particular case was obviously aware of Commons as he has had an account there for over a year and in fact edited description the page for this image at Commons three days before making the above remark . Beeblebrox (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)