From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 23
File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.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. Consensus is that an organization that declares itself not to belong to the federal government should be assumed not to unless conclusively proven otherwise. Chick Bowen 05:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Moved from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 11#File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg, where discussion hinged on whether or not the image is free, indicating that this needs to be settled first. Original FFD nomination was as follows: "This image is a WMATA-produced map of the Washington Metro system, showing the line to Dulles in place. This image is presently orphaned. The original uploader asserts that courts are split on whether WMATA is a federal agency or not, and due to some of the more recent cases indicating such, WMATA is federal and thus all of its works are public domain. I am not a lawyer, but I'm not quite willing to swallow that argument because at least to me it makes WMATA's status ambiguous at best. A cropped version of this image was deleted via PUF at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 October 10#File:WMATA Silver Line map.png. This file was rediscovered recently due to a message left on my talk page, and I believe it is the case that due to less-than-convincing evidence of WMATA's alleged federal status, we should treat this image as non-free. Treated as a non-free image, it fails WP:NFCC#1 ( this map could be modded to show Silver on it, for instance). Therefore this image should be deleted." SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Keep. (copied from the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 11#File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg entry) A majority of courts, and every one since 1986, has ruled that WMATA is a federal agency. To start, please see Elcon Enterprises v WMATA (D.C.Cir. 1992) and its discussion of a split among its district courts dating from the mid-1970s. Please see pages 1479-1480, especially the last paragraph of the section where the court makes it a point in dicta, that it believes the district court that had ruled the other way in 1977 conflicts with the higher court's ruling in 1986 that WMATA could be awarded sovereign immunity as a "federal agency or instrumentality". Elcon was then later cited by the court that had previously ruled the other way as support for the proposition that it's a federal agency. ( Monument Realty v. WMATA, D.D.C. 2008). WMATA is unique among transit compacts in that there was so much federal involvement in it and because Congress had to sign off on its creation beyond the simple ratification necessary for compacts that don't involve D.C. Jkatzen ( talk) 04:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Note, this image is only orphaned because it was replaced at some point on the Silver Line (Washington Metro) page (by someone else) with a PNG version of the file. It was deleted and removed from the page without my input on the deletion discussion. Should this debate end in a "keep", I would re-place this back into the Silver Line page. Jkatzen ( talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- In reading this opinion, I take from it that groups have treated it as a federal agency for purposes of their decisions, but not that it was a federal agency. Thus I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it sound. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 18:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete - for the reasons I said at the earlier discussion. The metro claims it's non-free, and frankly we're not lawyers enough to go ignoring messages that threaten legal action against us.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Precisely. To do otherwise is pretty reckless in my opinion. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Who's not a "lawyer enough"? I'm not pretending to be an expert on Wikipedia's interpretations of copyright law, but I am an attorney.
Jkatzen (
talk)
04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Are you an attorney with specific knowledge of copyright issues (DC copyright issues would be preferable). Magog the Ogre ( talk) 13:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Comment - My opinion is that we got it from WMATA and its free and metro is very well known for claiming authority they dont have or pishing their own power but why don't we just save ourselves the trouble and make one that shows the existsting with both of the new proposed extension (purple and silver) as well as maybe the VRE and MARC lines. I am not good at graphics myself but I know we have a lot of folks that are and rather than argue about an image that isn't really all that good in the first place. --
Kumioko (
talk)
15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you - this seems like the path of least resistance, since it would result in something that we are 100% certain that we have the right to use, and not something that would potentially cause us to rub up against WMATA lawyers.
SchuminWeb (
Talk)
23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- In fact, I think I recommended this last time. Avoids the headache of, uh, a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation and or the uploader himself.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Personally I dont think we need to worry about the lawsuit thing here because if it comes to it the WMF will remove the file themselves but I doubt that the WMATA would spend the effort when they probably get more publicity and traffic from this site and article than they do from their own anyway. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- In fact, I think I recommended this last time. Avoids the headache of, uh, a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation and or the uploader himself.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you - this seems like the path of least resistance, since it would result in something that we are 100% certain that we have the right to use, and not something that would potentially cause us to rub up against WMATA lawyers.
SchuminWeb (
Talk)
23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I have fleshed out the Silver Line article to include a section discussing the impact of the Silver Line on the iconic Lance Wyamn-produced Metro map. In my research, Wikipedia wouldn't allow me to include one of the links I found, from the Washington Examiner, but a Google search of the title should discover it. Even in the unlikely event that a court would change course on its characterization of WMATA as a federal agency, this image's use in the article, accompanied by such a discussion tailored to the specific existence of this WMATA-produced map, should easily be fair use.
Jkatzen (
talk)
05:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Clarification: Examiner.com is the problematic source, which Wikipedia will not permit. That is not the Washington Examiner, the free paper handed out at Metro stations and elsewhere. That site is washingtonexaminer.com, a perfectly valid reliable source. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- The Silver Line (Washington Metro) is in the middle of a GA review. I have deleted the discussion of this image from the article until its copyright status can be clarified. Please don't take my removal of that section and image as an indication that the image is not needed or wanted on Wikipedia. Rather it is my feable effort to get the article pass this important review. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 12:34, 30 November 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete The image itself contains a copyright message. Whether WMATA is actually a federal agency is dubious in terms of copyright: they claim copyright on the materials they produce, unlike any other federal agency. The safest course is to treat this as an orphaned fair-use image and delete. -- Danger ( talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
- Delete The image would not have a copyright if it was in public domain or not eligible for a copyright. WMATA's website had a copyright notice, unlike the website of any government agency. As a copyrighted map, it is easily replaceable with a free image, similar to File:WMATA system map.svg with the Silver Line added. – Dream out loud ( talk) 02:30, 26 January 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.
File:Touchdown Jesus 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. It would seem most prudent to err on the side of caution aside from concrete evidence one way or the other. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 06:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- I confirmed through Mallard Sheets' executor (his son) that the copyright on "The Word of Life" was expired. He can be reached through the contact page at the Millard Sheets Art Resource Website. I restored the image. - Nv8200p talk 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:Touchdown Jesus 2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a derivative image of the artwork of
Touchdown Jesus. Depending on its date of "publication", it may not be public domain.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The date was 1964, and anything published between '64 and 1989 inclusive needs to have a copyright notice in order for it to still be copyrighted today. So the question is whether the artwork carries a copyright notice. Powers T 19:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:HesburghLibrary.jpg is also affected by the outcome of this case. Powers T 19:00, 24 November 2010 (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.
File:SGSbuilding.png
- 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 delete as F9, blatant copyright infringement. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:SGSbuilding.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- This user uploaded many files related to Sutton Grammar School for Boys and claimed to be the copyright holder but clearly isn't. This photo, for example, was just taken from the school's official website. — Half Price 18:19, 23 November 2010 (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.
File:GGGibs.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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:GGGibs.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image originally uploaded as File:GGGibson.jpg where someone placed a deletion template on. So user has just renamed file and claimed he is the copyright holder. Their user talk page shows a history of unfree file abuse. Also, image was originally used to show deputy headmaster of Sutton Grammar School for Boys, but he retired 3 years ago. — Half Price 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete. I was unable to nail this down to the point of an F9 speedy deletion, but considering the uploader's history on this subject, it is likely that this image is also infringing. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (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.
File:Suttonspartans.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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Suttonspartans.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Summary says it's an "independent photo" which is a bit ambiguous. Revision comments include "(Author: SGS URL: http://www.suttongrammar.sutton.sch.uk/)", clearly showing this has just been stolen from said website. — Half Price 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete. I was unable to nail this down to the point of an F9 speedy deletion, but considering the uploader's history on this subject, it is likely that this image is also infringing. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (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.
Hidden category:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
November 23
File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.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. Consensus is that an organization that declares itself not to belong to the federal government should be assumed not to unless conclusively proven otherwise. Chick Bowen 05:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Moved from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 11#File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg, where discussion hinged on whether or not the image is free, indicating that this needs to be settled first. Original FFD nomination was as follows: "This image is a WMATA-produced map of the Washington Metro system, showing the line to Dulles in place. This image is presently orphaned. The original uploader asserts that courts are split on whether WMATA is a federal agency or not, and due to some of the more recent cases indicating such, WMATA is federal and thus all of its works are public domain. I am not a lawyer, but I'm not quite willing to swallow that argument because at least to me it makes WMATA's status ambiguous at best. A cropped version of this image was deleted via PUF at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 October 10#File:WMATA Silver Line map.png. This file was rediscovered recently due to a message left on my talk page, and I believe it is the case that due to less-than-convincing evidence of WMATA's alleged federal status, we should treat this image as non-free. Treated as a non-free image, it fails WP:NFCC#1 ( this map could be modded to show Silver on it, for instance). Therefore this image should be deleted." SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Keep. (copied from the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 11#File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg entry) A majority of courts, and every one since 1986, has ruled that WMATA is a federal agency. To start, please see Elcon Enterprises v WMATA (D.C.Cir. 1992) and its discussion of a split among its district courts dating from the mid-1970s. Please see pages 1479-1480, especially the last paragraph of the section where the court makes it a point in dicta, that it believes the district court that had ruled the other way in 1977 conflicts with the higher court's ruling in 1986 that WMATA could be awarded sovereign immunity as a "federal agency or instrumentality". Elcon was then later cited by the court that had previously ruled the other way as support for the proposition that it's a federal agency. ( Monument Realty v. WMATA, D.D.C. 2008). WMATA is unique among transit compacts in that there was so much federal involvement in it and because Congress had to sign off on its creation beyond the simple ratification necessary for compacts that don't involve D.C. Jkatzen ( talk) 04:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Note, this image is only orphaned because it was replaced at some point on the Silver Line (Washington Metro) page (by someone else) with a PNG version of the file. It was deleted and removed from the page without my input on the deletion discussion. Should this debate end in a "keep", I would re-place this back into the Silver Line page. Jkatzen ( talk) 05:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- In reading this opinion, I take from it that groups have treated it as a federal agency for purposes of their decisions, but not that it was a federal agency. Thus I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it sound. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 18:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete - for the reasons I said at the earlier discussion. The metro claims it's non-free, and frankly we're not lawyers enough to go ignoring messages that threaten legal action against us.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
15:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Precisely. To do otherwise is pretty reckless in my opinion. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Who's not a "lawyer enough"? I'm not pretending to be an expert on Wikipedia's interpretations of copyright law, but I am an attorney.
Jkatzen (
talk)
04:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Are you an attorney with specific knowledge of copyright issues (DC copyright issues would be preferable). Magog the Ogre ( talk) 13:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Comment - My opinion is that we got it from WMATA and its free and metro is very well known for claiming authority they dont have or pishing their own power but why don't we just save ourselves the trouble and make one that shows the existsting with both of the new proposed extension (purple and silver) as well as maybe the VRE and MARC lines. I am not good at graphics myself but I know we have a lot of folks that are and rather than argue about an image that isn't really all that good in the first place. --
Kumioko (
talk)
15:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you - this seems like the path of least resistance, since it would result in something that we are 100% certain that we have the right to use, and not something that would potentially cause us to rub up against WMATA lawyers.
SchuminWeb (
Talk)
23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- In fact, I think I recommended this last time. Avoids the headache of, uh, a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation and or the uploader himself.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Personally I dont think we need to worry about the lawsuit thing here because if it comes to it the WMF will remove the file themselves but I doubt that the WMATA would spend the effort when they probably get more publicity and traffic from this site and article than they do from their own anyway. -- Kumioko ( talk) 01:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- In fact, I think I recommended this last time. Avoids the headache of, uh, a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation and or the uploader himself.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you - this seems like the path of least resistance, since it would result in something that we are 100% certain that we have the right to use, and not something that would potentially cause us to rub up against WMATA lawyers.
SchuminWeb (
Talk)
23:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I have fleshed out the Silver Line article to include a section discussing the impact of the Silver Line on the iconic Lance Wyamn-produced Metro map. In my research, Wikipedia wouldn't allow me to include one of the links I found, from the Washington Examiner, but a Google search of the title should discover it. Even in the unlikely event that a court would change course on its characterization of WMATA as a federal agency, this image's use in the article, accompanied by such a discussion tailored to the specific existence of this WMATA-produced map, should easily be fair use.
Jkatzen (
talk)
05:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- Clarification: Examiner.com is the problematic source, which Wikipedia will not permit. That is not the Washington Examiner, the free paper handed out at Metro stations and elsewhere. That site is washingtonexaminer.com, a perfectly valid reliable source. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- The Silver Line (Washington Metro) is in the middle of a GA review. I have deleted the discussion of this image from the article until its copyright status can be clarified. Please don't take my removal of that section and image as an indication that the image is not needed or wanted on Wikipedia. Rather it is my feable effort to get the article pass this important review. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 12:34, 30 November 2010 (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. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete The image itself contains a copyright message. Whether WMATA is actually a federal agency is dubious in terms of copyright: they claim copyright on the materials they produce, unlike any other federal agency. The safest course is to treat this as an orphaned fair-use image and delete. -- Danger ( talk) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
- Delete The image would not have a copyright if it was in public domain or not eligible for a copyright. WMATA's website had a copyright notice, unlike the website of any government agency. As a copyrighted map, it is easily replaceable with a free image, similar to File:WMATA system map.svg with the Silver Line added. – Dream out loud ( talk) 02:30, 26 January 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.
File:Touchdown Jesus 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. It would seem most prudent to err on the side of caution aside from concrete evidence one way or the other. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 06:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- I confirmed through Mallard Sheets' executor (his son) that the copyright on "The Word of Life" was expired. He can be reached through the contact page at the Millard Sheets Art Resource Website. I restored the image. - Nv8200p talk 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply
- File:Touchdown Jesus 2.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- This is a derivative image of the artwork of
Touchdown Jesus. Depending on its date of "publication", it may not be public domain.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
- The date was 1964, and anything published between '64 and 1989 inclusive needs to have a copyright notice in order for it to still be copyrighted today. So the question is whether the artwork carries a copyright notice. Powers T 19:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:HesburghLibrary.jpg is also affected by the outcome of this case. Powers T 19:00, 24 November 2010 (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.
File:SGSbuilding.png
- 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 delete as F9, blatant copyright infringement. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:SGSbuilding.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- This user uploaded many files related to Sutton Grammar School for Boys and claimed to be the copyright holder but clearly isn't. This photo, for example, was just taken from the school's official website. — Half Price 18:19, 23 November 2010 (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.
File:GGGibs.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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:GGGibs.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image originally uploaded as File:GGGibson.jpg where someone placed a deletion template on. So user has just renamed file and claimed he is the copyright holder. Their user talk page shows a history of unfree file abuse. Also, image was originally used to show deputy headmaster of Sutton Grammar School for Boys, but he retired 3 years ago. — Half Price 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete. I was unable to nail this down to the point of an F9 speedy deletion, but considering the uploader's history on this subject, it is likely that this image is also infringing. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (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.
File:Suttonspartans.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 Skier Dude ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC) reply
- File:Suttonspartans.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Summary says it's an "independent photo" which is a bit ambiguous. Revision comments include "(Author: SGS URL: http://www.suttongrammar.sutton.sch.uk/)", clearly showing this has just been stolen from said website. — Half Price 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply
- Delete. I was unable to nail this down to the point of an F9 speedy deletion, but considering the uploader's history on this subject, it is likely that this image is also infringing. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:46, 24 November 2010 (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.
Hidden category: