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⚡ 02:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great value neufchatel cheese.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Copyrighted packaging artwork. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:38, 7 September 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carrying On, by Janet Zweig & Edward del Rosario-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of station artwork, which has unknown copyright. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like my photo, although if so then the name of the file was certainly changed. The EXIF data shows it was my camera! CoolGuy (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was the one who renamed it as well as similar ones, because it had a bad name("File:ZEJN0020.jpg") that had to be changed. I hope that didn't contribute to the decision to delete it. ----DanTD (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The claim here, as below, is that it isn't permissible because it is a photograph of artwork that may have been copyrighted. But I disagree and think that this photograph is acceptable. It is a design on a public subway's wall. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carrying On, by Janet Zweig & Edward del Rosario-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of station artwork, which has unknown copyright. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photograph of a subway wall, for heaven's sake. I don't see how there could possibly be a problem. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2011 (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 Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kyang Bandarban.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Found the photo at http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/13480a/ where it is dated to 2005, which predates the uploading of this image. Powers ^T 14:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am the uploader. Replacing it with my own work will not be difficult at all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:07, 9 September 2011 (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⚡ 02:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC07327.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Unused in any article, contains non-free Windows logo. Gyrobo (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like de minimis to me. Pretty blurry photo, though. Powers ^T 18:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just blur or black out the screen, no need to delete a useful image. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't think about that. I've blacked out the screen, and uploaded it to Commons as File:T-Mobile PDA Phone - The Wing.jpg. This image can now be removed as redundant. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should make it clear on the description page that you modified the image. Powers ^T 02:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done --Gyrobo (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The file was moved from File:DSC07327.JPG to File:T-Mobile's PDA Phone--The Wing.JPG by JohnnyMrNinja (talk · contribs) at 07:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 09:11, 18 September 2011 (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. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RnOriginal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Photograph of a historical British uniform claimed to be from the US Navy Historical Center and licensed under PD-USGov, but without a specific source link. However, this institution doesn't seem to have any illustrations of British uniforms, at least in its online exhibits [1] (and why would it?). This image is, however, found on the website of the British Royal Naval Museum, where it is marked as copyrighted [2]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image was e-mailed to me by the U.S. Navy Historical Society - all the contact info is on the image page. I've asked the contact at the NHS to e-mail Wikipedia OTSR with a verification from a .mil government account verifying that the image is Public Domain. Regarding why the US Navy would have British uniform photos, the Washington Navy Yard actually has a complete Royal Navy History display that they display from time to time (I've been to it). Other exhibits include a Royal Navy Boatswain's uniform and pipe as well as an original cat-of-nine tails. -OberRanks (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please e-mail all your own correspondence about these images to OTRS and cite the OTRS ticket here, now. Because, quite frankly, I am beginning to suspect you are outright lying (wouldn't be the first time, you know.) Last time you were claiming something was sourced to the UK National Maritime Museum, when it turned out it was in fact the creation of a private website. Now you claim something was mailed to you from the US NHS, when it quite clearly is the creation of the UK National Maritime Museum. In the earlier case, you once implied the material had been mailed to you from the UK museum that you had named as the source on the file page, and then claimed it was mailed to you from the US National Archives. In both cases, the images are not found on the websites of the institutions you allegedly got them from. You said you had mailed "to Wikipedia" the details of the earlier case, last week, and then when I asked you where exactly you mailed it, you evaded the issue and refused to name the person you sent it to. You promised you would again send the same info to OTRS, but apparently didn't. You also promised you would get more confirmation from the NMM (or the National Archives?), but nothing came of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I asked the NHS contact to e-mail Wikipedia directly. Its 7:30 at night where he is, so I suspect an answer wont come for a day or so. I would also submit it isn't really appropriate to call another Wikipedia user a liar without extremely strong evidence and hardcore links to such evidence. To do otherwise breaks WP:AGF and violates WP:NPA. I think you may wish to give yourself some distance from this as it is clear you are becoming angry and going on record calling another user a liar. Not something I would expect of an administrator. -OberRanks (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive311. Now, have you forwarded your mails to OTRS or haven't you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Something from 4 years ago? Don't see how that is in any way related to the question about this image's sourcing. -OberRanks (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's related to the question of whether you can be trusted. Now, have you forwarded those mails or haven't you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed the image from the article [3] and asked other admins to review the situation. So far you have called me a liar and brought up a completely unrelated case from nearly five years ago. These are not the actions of a good administrator. Good night. -OberRanks (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw my concerns here. Image should be deleted as I now think it was taken from the Internet and then e-mailed to me by the Naval Historical Society. I've already removed it from the article. -OberRanks (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2011 (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.