Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 January 7



File:Owsley Stanley (1967).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: speedy kept. This is not a freely-licensed image, but it is used under a claim of fair use, therefore this is an inappropriate venue for discussion of its status. In addition, this is a bad-faith nomination in an attempt to win an editing dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Owsley Stanley (1967).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Copyright infringement of newspaper photo. Folkprofessor (talk)
 * Keep proper license and a proper FUR, Folkprofessor has just come off a block for removing the image and is about to get a perm block and and IP block for his behavior. He keeps trying to replace the image or delete the image. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Caterpillar C15 engine.4.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. — ξ xplicit  03:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Caterpillar C15 engine.4.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence that the photograph was taken by the United States Government. Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I have tried to upload this image several times. The ".4" version came up as public domain, which it is. The summary has the source. The link is: Sammy D III (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Sorry, the page of the image is "0008-2". Sammy D III (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This confirms correct, the image is from that manual and would appear to be public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep User:Stefan2 again not doing the minimal work to verify claims. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The uploader posted a file to Wikipedia, but failed to provide any source for it. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Summary: "Caterpillar C15 engine from US Army TM 9-2320-338-10". Isn't that a source? Sammy D III (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A statement that the image comes from the US Army is not a source, it's an unsourced statement. I don't know what the number at the end means. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A source WAS provided, you just didn't understand it. Sammy D III (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An assertion that the image comes from the US Army, combined with a seemingly random number, can hardly be considered to be a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an assertion, it was a statement of fact. Anyone familiar with the US Army would not think that a TM number was "a seemingly random number". Maybe if someone isn't knowledgeable on a subject, they shouldn't insult someone who is. I answered your question with a link, yet you STILL said "The uploader posted a file to Wikipedia, but failed to provide any source for it" AFTER I posted the link. You owe me an apology. Sammy D III (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Follow User:Stefan2's logic and escalation at Files for discussion/2016 January 7 for File:Owsley Stanley (1967).jpg. I don't see any evidence of due diligence, and I do not get the feeling he is grasping the rules he is quoting and enforcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the original flag was unjustified. A yellow Army engine and a not clear source = a mistake. I took offense at the discussion, not realizing that it was part of a feud. Sammy D III (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2016 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.