Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 December 4



File:Ladakh2.svg

 * 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 ⚡  04:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Ladakh2.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).

This map is based on: It's not clear what the uploader has taken from those sources or if the uploader has taken something copyrightable. The link is dead. Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.tibet.freeserve.co.uk/ladakh-map.jpg
 * Rizvi, J., Trans-Himalayan Caravans – Merchant Princes and Peasant Traders in Ladakh, Oxford India Paperbacks, 2001
 * Loram, Charlie. Trekking in Ladakh, Trailblazer Publications, 2004
 * 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:Rakaposhi 3.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 discussion was: keep. There seems to be consensus at Commons that the GOF policy is a Good Idea, and they're generally more strict about copyright than en.wiki. I don't see anything wrong with assuming this file had the proper permission prior to the start of OTRS. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Rakaposhi 3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader claims written permission, but that's not usually sufficient for us. See also File:Rakaposhi.jpg, File:Rakaposhi 2.jpg, File:Rakaposhi 4.jpg, File:Rakaposhi 5.jpg. Powers T 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Commons:COM:GOF. This was uploaded before 8 January 2006. And no, I don't like these unverifiable statements. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well if there was a GOF tag on the image description page, or an OTRS reference number, we wouldn't be here discussing this. Powers T 12:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded this photo (and others) taken of Rakaposhi by the photographer and historian, Dr. Volker Thewalt, years ago because I thought they were so outstanding. Before I uploaded them, I wrote to Dr. Thewalt and asked his permission for them to be used freely on WP and then forwarded his reply to WP. Some time after that someone wrote me to say that the wording in his letter was not clear enough. So, I contacted him again about the problem and he sent another, very clear email, stating that he was happy for them to be used under GNU Free Documentation licensing. I forwarded this reply to WP at the time and it was accepted. Now his clear statements are being questioned again - years later! I no longer have copies of all this correspondence (having been through several notebooks in the interval) and I no longer have his email address. Surely his letters giving permission for these photos are still on file somewhere at WP? Truly, I believe I have done everything necessary to make certain that the original photographer was happy for them to be used and that all copyright requirements were met. I find repeated questioning over a number of years all very discouraging. In future, I will certainly think carefully about trying to get someone else's photos onto Wikipedia as it is just too much hassle and a waste of time - and I feel certain other editors experiencing this sort of long-term questioning will feel the same. This is a real shame, as we will all likely miss out on some truly memorable images. I hope you can find copies of the original emails from Dr. Thewalt and will keep the images. I am sure he will be disappointed if you remove them after all this time especially as he has kindly written twice to give permission and to make sure they met Wikipedia's requirements. Please let me know what you decide. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Three of the five images mentioned by User:LtPowers are sourced to Dr. Volker Thewalt. Two of them are not and were uploaded by different users and seem to be unrelated to this problem. Commons:COM:GOF states that uploading a file like this is enough if the file was uploaded before 8 january 2006, and all of the images were uploaded in 2005. However, it is always better if we can get OTRS permission. One of the three images has an OTRS tag, so I asked at WP:OTRS/N if someone could verify whether the OTRS tag also applies to the other two images. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2012 (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:Aerial view of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.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 ⚡  04:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * File:Aerial view of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Lacks enough source information to confirm license. Eeekster (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2012 (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.