Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 17
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 16 | January 18 > |
|---|
January 17
[edit]
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Duff ww 2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Orphan image is a screenshot of a website. Website includes a former Microsoft Windows logo which is probably owned by Microsoft. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Everton crest.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image is a low resolution crest for the city of Everton although I cannot figure out which one. Regardless, the copyright is likely owned by said city and therefore this orphan image is not free. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete City flags are generally considered copyrighted logos. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Exocarta snap.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Screenshot of a exosome database. Database is most likely not owned by uploader, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jon Mckenzie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Non-free image of living individual; poor quality and presumed replaceable with a free equivalent. Kinu t/c 03:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 G7 by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First sourced to "MP & Silva (http://www.mpsilva.com/)" with a comment saying that the "Photo of Marco Auletta by Rachel Dias Azevedo Hughes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License." Later changed to own work by uploader ({{self}}) but sourced to "Rachel Hughes @ MP & Silva". It's unclear whether the uploader is "Rachel Hughes @ MP & Silva" or not. Stefan2 (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rachel Hughes is user Rdiasazevedo (and my Wife). Sorry about the confusion, she asked me to upload the image and when asked about licensing there was confusion about possible distinctions between commercial use and free - i.e. creative commons asks 'Allow commercial uses of your work'. Later she realized the error and decided to release it under a free license and we edited it but using my laptop. She has now reuploaded it with her account so can you please delete this version - sorry for the confusion (we complete newbies to Wiki) Dsth (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hyaenaglands.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- British author - but no indication of Indian publication. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is apparently called Fauna of British India which may mean that it is from India. However, it's not enough that it is in the public domain in India. Wikipedia requires it to be in the public domain in the United States, and since the book wasn't published before 1941 as required by WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, the book is protected by copyright in the United States for 95 years since publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.