Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 September 25



File:Bardaskan (40).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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Bardaskan (40).JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The "Farhad Abdollahi©" text leads me to believe the uploader is not the copyright owner. Eeekster (talk) 01:22, 25 September 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.

File:OTAShirt-Back.png

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  09:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:OTAShirt-Back.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:OTAShirt-Front.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * These images were made with a blank T-shirt template from, which states, "Please do not use this template for commercial projects (making money) unless you contact me first and I give permission." A non-commercial license like that is not free enough for Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not recall that being there originally, but the wayback machine does not go way back. Either way, it's much ado about nothing IMHO, but I've created replacements File:OTAShirt-Back.svg and File:OTAShirt-Front.svg anyway. Alas, mediawiki sucks at creating thumbnails of SVG with embedded rasters. I suppose someone could render smaller versions of the SVGs to replace the PNGs, and revert the edits on Office of Technology Assessment, but I've spent enough midnight oil on this. --Belg4mit (talk) 05:14, 25 September 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.

File:Thorazine.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Source give states, "© 2002-2011 Encyclopaedia Metallum ". So unless the uploader works for the band or label, this might need to be changed to a fair use tag. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 25 September 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.

File:Forumspam.png

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  02:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Forumspam.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * A screenshot of forum software, so not the work of the uploader, meaning the license tags provided are false. The text itself is likely to be copyrighted even if it is forum spam. The image could be converted to fair use, but I think it would likely fail the WP:NFCC, since it does little to increase readers understanding, and can be described in text. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * An effort should be made to contact the uploader for clarification (WP:AGF), and see if the software used on that forum is distributed under the GPL or another free enough license for WP use, which would cover the layout and forum's words (much forum software is). Spam by it's nature fits Lentower (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an effort to contact the uploader for clarification—a message was left on the uploader's talk page about this discussion, and the purpose of this discussion is clarification. —Bkell (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the headsup. It isn't clear on the article page, and wasn't clear here, that the uploader's talk page had the notification. Lentower (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bkell is correct on the issue of talking to the uploader. WP:NFCC is only relevant if the image is non-free, which if it is it will have to be re-tagged with the appropriate non-free content tag. I am not convinced that this image would pass the WP:NFCC as it stands, the main criterion of interest is number eight, which states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." At present the image has just been placed at the topic of the article and as a consequence it improves article aesthetics, but little more. If there was a section on forum spam and the image was clearly placed to give an example of it, then there may be stronger case on it passing the criterion. Furthermore, given the many choices forum software out there WP:NFCC could also be an issue, not to mention the resolution is too high (WP:NFCC). CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin handling this: I just had a look at the uploader's talk page User_talk:Phanuruch8555. Relative new user, who may not be up to speed on the details of licensing. He's also blocked until next Sunday 2 October. Not clear to me, if he can comment here or there during the block, and if he can, he may stop looking at WP during the block. You might want to restart the time to handle this to Sun 2 Oct 2011. The issues surrounding the block (which I have not fully evaluated), and whether this image can be used on Wikipedia, are separate issues. Thanks Lentower (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to accept an extension, though the uploader does not have a history of responding to copyright concerns about his uploads. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it is clear that the uploader, who's block has expired, is not going give more information on this image - though I'm open to being proven wrong on that. Without proper source and copyright information, the image cannot stay even if it is converted to a non-free status. Therefore, I think the only answer here is deletion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:28, 6 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.

File:Lowther Station Crest.png

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  01:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Lowther Station Crest.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This file has a non-free use rationale that says, "Copyright held by Canadian Forces Air Command. Claimed as fair use regardless." But it is also tagged as being licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0. No evidence is provided to support those free licenses. —Bkell (talk) 17:11, 25 September 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.

File:Dr. Jack Yang.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  01:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Dr. Jack Yang.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Yang Altman.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Ersoy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:DrYang.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:Hall-Yang-Arabnia.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:ISIBM.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).
 * File:ISIBM President.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Tagged as self-created, but attributed to a website. —Bkell (talk) 18:47, 25 September 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.