Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 26



File:Darj(rh252-4643).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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  12:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Darj(rh252-4643).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * One of four images uploaded by banned User:Mokshanine. Likely copyvios as one has "Courtesy of ..." and another claims to have been drawn by author, but I doubt that.


 * File:Darj(rh252-4643).jpg
 * File:Rectoffice52.jpg
 * File:Cotton hall.jpg
 * File:Frontbadge.gif

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Its safer to delete them all. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I see Leoboudv Anna has failed to tag nominations properly. Example: caption at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalapahar remains untagged --Elvey (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to give another reason for objecting to the deletion of the images. Accidental oversight, which can obviously be fixed, is not a reason to oppose deletion.  -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  19:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, it was not Leoboudv who nominated this file, it was Anna Frodesiak, who nominated the first image listed correctly on 00:27, 26 December 2013‎. Cheers. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I have notified the appropriate user: User talk:Anna Frodesiak. Cheers. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 19:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We disagree. IMO: Failure to notify properly is CERTAINLY an excellent reason to not delete.  It's sad that it seems to be common. --Elvey (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, but finding out the actual nominator, and asking them to fix their mistake would've been a better solution. The main image was tagged correctly, as were the below ones that you claimed weren't.  The additional images the nominator listed were not tagged right, so I asked her to fix it.  Failure of notification is not reason to keep, but it reason to postpone the discussion until the notification is properly done.  So instead of keeping the image just because someone made a mistake, the closing admin would be wise to take that mistake (and the resolution of it) into consideration of when to close the discussion as opposed to how to close it. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  20:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The usual thing is to not add any pufc image. Also, non-addition of that template is not a reason to keep a file. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Finding out the actual nominator, and asking them to fix their mistake would've been a better solution, agreed. That's now been requested; thank you.  Failure to notify properly is CERTAINLY an excellent reason to not delete.  The closer must never delete if there hasn't been proper notification (unless the evidence for deletion is strong enough that notification would not foreseeably result in strong evidence favoring a keep.)  --Elvey (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A thousand pardons. I deliberately nominated only one but listed them all. I thought that otherwise, Twinkle would generate four, separate discussions, each using as a reason for deletion, the other images in the group. Evaluating the images as a group seemed to makes sense. Should I now nominate the other three and cross link them all? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I get it now. The template's "...this file's listing..." goes to Possibly unfree files/2013 December 26 and not this exact entry. I've tagged the rest and will know for next time. Sorry for the trouble. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are all the captions now proper? Nope, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalapahar remains untagged. --Elvey (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry again. Now tagged. Please understand that I very rarely nom images at enwp for deletion. I usually handle such images issues at commons and just remove the disputed image from the article. Plus, I never read the instructions at Possibly unfree files because twinkle did everything automatically. Now I know. Thanks for your patience. Further issues, please let me know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2013 (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:Beanie babies sock money 1.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  12:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Beanie babies sock money 1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Beanie Babies design, Requesting COM:TOYS clarification. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-free toy, see Commons:COM:TOYS. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I see ShakespareFan00 has failed to tag nominations properly. Example: caption at sock monkey remains untagged. Should be tagged and kept for 7 days from when it was properly tagged, IMO, and then reviewed. --Elvey (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2013 (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:Musical Landscapes and the Goddesses of Music.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: Delete; deleted as F11 by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Musical Landscapes and the Goddesses of Music.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is a sculpture. Does FoP apply? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I suppose FOP would depend on which country this sculpture is located in. If it is located in India, Vietnam, China or Malaysia which has FOP for 3D works, it might be OK. If it was in Cambodia or Laos, it might not be OK. Only an Admin would know, however. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unknown country, so impossible to tell whether FOP applies or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I see Leoboudv has failed to tag nominations properly. Example: was never added, so I object to the lot of them .--Elvey (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC) (new vote below)
 * You're right Leoboudv did not tag this image, because they did not nominate it. Sfan00 IMG did, and he tagged it correctly on  01:42, 26 December 2013‎. Cheers. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  19:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The usual thing is to not add any pufc image. Also, non-addition of that template is not a reason to keep a file. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * !vote struck. (True in this case, but Note: in general: if there is a failure to notify as required, that makes any deletion improper.)--Elvey (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence of FoP issue, no reason to delete. No reason not to AGF.  Also are Stefan2 and Sfan00 IMG not alternate accounts of the same person? --Elvey (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The summary refers to "Ranjit Makkuni, Musical Landscapes and the Goddesses of Music", an exhibition in India, which does have FOP. The uploader (User:TheRealRanjitMakkuni) however doesn't appear to be the photographer (the metadata names Suraj Saigal as the author), so we may need OTRS permission for the actual photo. January  ( talk ) 22:00, 1 January 2014 (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:Ryansfancygroup.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: Kept: Changed to non-free. --  TLSuda  (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Ryansfancygroup.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This image was uploaded by a user who was banned for uploading copyright violations and typing in fake OTRS permission tickets as well as impersonating another user. How can he/she claim to freely license this image as 'own work' when it appears to be a non-free fair use image? We don't know the source of this photo so it may be safer to delete it on the precautionary principle. Leoboudv (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I see Leoboudv has failed to tag nominations properly. Example: was never added, so I object to the lot of them.--Elvey (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Leoboudv did tag this one correctly on 05:04, 26 December 2013. Cheers. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  19:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Leoboudv HAS failed to tag nominations properly. L DID do this. I see that L is instructed there to "Add the following to the file's caption(s): " but did NOT do so.  As I said, "No edit here!"   So what I said, "Leoboudv has failed to tag nominations properly. Example:  was never added" was true.
 * We disagree. IMO: Failure to notify is CERTAINLY a reason to oppose deletion.  So is the one you give below. --Elvey (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The usual thing is to not add any pufc image. Also, non-addition of that template is not a reason to keep a file. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Change license to Non-free. As a title-card of the television show, it would be allowed per WP:NFCI and meets the criteria of WP:NFCC. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 20:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I did notify the banned uploader and have now taken this step as Elvey requested. As for this image, if the image license is changed to non-free, I would have no objection to keeping this image as long as a non-free rationale is added. It is not the uploader's 'own work.' Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What? That's not what I requested.  You need to, as I said, "Add the following to the file's caption(s):  " but STILL did NOT do so.  As I said, "No edit here!"  THAT is where you need to edit.  here!  --Elvey (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Edit now done here Please feel free to change the image license to non-free and add a non-free rationale. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2014 (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:Sheikh Mubarak Abdulllah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Sheikh Mubarak Abdulllah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * See Possibly unfree files/2013 December 15. Source ("Kuwaiti Publication") and author (the uploader) details are incompatible. Clearly scanned and cropped from an unspecified book. A photograph taken in 1977 (i.e. only 36 years ago) will not be in the public domain in Kuwait, which uses the "life + 50 years" rule for determining copyright expiry.  Super Mario  Man  05:29, 26 December 2013 (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:Mubarak Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Mubarak Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Presents the same problems as File:Sheikh Mubarack Abdullah Al-Jaber Al-Sabah.jpg, from which this image has been cropped. It is highly doubtful that the uploader is the copyright holder, as is claimed. No detailed source, author or date information has been provided, which makes it difficult to determine the copyright status of the original. A photograph taken in the 1960s is unlikely to have yet entered the public domain according to the rules of most countries.  Super Mario  Man  05:48, 26 December 2013 (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:Beanie babies sock monkey 2.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Beanie babies sock monkey 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Clarification request (per COM:TOYS) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-free toy, see Commons:COM:TOYS. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2013 (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.

Uploads by Sockpuppet investigations/Jwratner1

 * 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 by Peripitus. Closing overall discussion. --  TLSuda  (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

File:TempHeatWater.jpg

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

Contents are mainly facts not subject to copyright, so a replacement that doesn't preserve, e.g. font choices should be fine. Ditto for the rest of this series. Tagged this one for conversion. --Elvey (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked, so user can't address the problems. Seems a sickish move to delete their uploads while they're blocked.  --Elvey (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User has been deluged with a bunch of unhelpful warnings that don't actually point to the real problems.  :-(  What about WP:BITE ?--Elvey (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all. User now is found as part of a sockdrawer of editors engaged in text copyio as well. Should probably bundle up his uploads...all of which appear to be copies from various other sources. Based on editor's history no credible claims to the contrary even if they did not appear to be unoriginal works. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Several of the images are probably below the threshold of originality. That said, many of the images are unused and of low quality, so it might not be worth the trouble to try to determine which ones we might be able to keep. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Earthfeature12.jpg

 * File:Earthfeature12.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:PlantresidueChangewithAge.jpg

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


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Soildegradation.jpg

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


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:MatricPotentialvshydro.jpg

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


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:SoilPhosphorus.jpg

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


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:EffectiveCECsoilpH.jpg

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


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:SoilDepo.jpg

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


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Somatosensory cortex map.jpg

 * File:Somatosensory cortex map.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:SoilStructurepotential.jpg

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


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Range of SoilpH.jpg

 * File:Range of SoilpH.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Soil water potential 2.jpg

 * File:Soil water potential 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

File:PlantResidueComponents.jpg

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


 * Possible textbook image, Uploader is aware of this issue. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2013 (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:Shiwan Ware figures.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  12:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Shiwan Ware figures.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Editor did not leave a direct source (might be uploader's own work) but left "fair use" in the description. Also, unknown statues may have copyright of their own. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  22:22, 26 December 2013 (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.