Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 27



File:Foto de Carlos Soto Arriví y Arnaldo Darío Rosado.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 ⚡  11:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Foto de Carlos Soto Arriví y Arnaldo Darío Rosado.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Not public domain as claimed in the license tag. Eeekster (talk) 02:22, 27 July 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:Earliest Photograph of the 270 Sherman building c. 1900.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: Deleted; we don't know enough about the image to determine its copyright status. Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Earliest Photograph of the 270 Sherman building c. 1900.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * If the photo really was taken in 1900, then it's very doubtful that this is the uploader's own work ALH (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment it could always be his own scan. Someone on a forum says this photo is atleast as old as 1913 (photo used in the forum is a different copy of the original photo, lower res, so is not the origin of this high resolution copy) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Professional picture. Clearly not the uploader's own work or they'd be over 100 years old even if taken while they where a child.  Caffeyw (talk) 14:34, 25 August 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:Narrabeen FC logo.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: Deleted; file is not in use. Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Narrabeen FC logo.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is logo artwork, so not self as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 27 July 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:Bangalore mirror daily indian english newspaper article about saad khan.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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  12:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Bangalore mirror daily indian english newspaper article about saad khan.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is a newspaper article, but no evidence is presented that uploader has a connection with the paper concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 27 July 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:Intelligence Corps TRF.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 discussion was: Kept and re-tagged. Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Intelligence Corps TRF.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * As far as I was aware British Forces Insignia were not specfically exempted under British Laws, This however may be below TOO and thus ineligible anyway.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I point the notifiers to all other TRFs on this page as justification. Cheers, Masked Turk (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Convert to PD-ineligible-USonly per nom -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * concur with IP, retag as PD-ineligible or variant. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 04:13, 29 July 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:Washington's Headquarters Valley Forge.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: Nomination withdrawn. Diannaa (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Washington& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Claimed as authors own work but photo credit lsisted as -RevolutionaryPA.com. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They are one in the same. I don't wish to use a Wikipedia username for photo credit. --JC1008 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to attribute your photos to your website as "author", it can create problems at Wikipedia because (in effect) your domain name has copyright to those photos. Wikipedia can't republish copyrighted content except under limited circumstances covered by fair use. You have several options, such as:
 * (1) Identify these as your own contributions that you are releasing under a Creative Commons license. List yourself as the author, but indicate on the file page that you first published the image your website and that your domain name should receive credit for the photo.
 * (2) Place a statement on your website (which currently seems to be "down for maintenance") indicating that website content may be republished under a Creative Commons license.
 * (3) Send a message to OTRS, traceable to the owner of your domain, documenting that User:JC1008 is authorized to release images for use in Wikipedia under a Creative Commons license. --Orlady (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My thought was in doing the attribution, it seems strange to have "Photo by Wikipedia User XXXXX" or whatever, but makes more sense to attribute to a website. So if somebody's going to drop it in the blog post, for example, that'd make more sense outside Wikipedia.  I didn't really want to put my name on them (and I'm sort of considering just making future photos I release for Wikipedia public domain, but haven't decided yet).  I looked up the "Author" line description in the Wikipedia guidelines, but it wasn't detailed.  Could you help with thoughts, based on my intent there?  Your #1 sounds like my intention, but could use help with how that's normally done/worded.  --JC1008 (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on dealing with the upload interface, but I can suggest how to record the needed information in the description template. Put your user name (formatted as a link, as in JC1008 ) in the author field in the page description. After your user name, enter the details of how the photo should be credited. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That seems to work for what I wanted. Now how to I close this and get the tag removed, since it's no longer relevant? --JC1008 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn : Uploader provided required data to confirm status Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:31, 2 August 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.