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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mzima Network Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Dubious own work: looks like software or website screenshot. Why would it otherwise say "View All" at the bottom? Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 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 discussion was: Kept and cleaned up; also kept and cleaned up: File:Portrait of James Lord Bowes circa 1875.png Dianna (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Lord Bowes 1834-99.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No source and no licence, but the file name suggests that the man died in the 19th century. An earlier version of the file information page, Special:PermanentLink/549899492, tells that an image is from 1970, but it's not clear if the photo is anonymous, taken by someone who died before 1943 or published. Besides, there was previously a different image under the same name, and it's unclear which image the text refers to. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have struggled to find a way to upload this picture to the wikipedia page (never having done this before)and it keeps reverting to wikimedia - where I mistakenly posted the wrong picture yesterday. This is now the correct picture and a member helped me on the help desk to correct the error today. The image now being referred to is a deliberately resized image (to thumbnail) given to me by the descendants of the subject (James Lord Bowes) who have no objection to it being freely used, as it has been in several publications, notably the book Japan and Britain after 1859: Creating Cultural Bridges, by Olive Checkland, Routledge Curzon, London 2003. the subject of the picture died in 1899 (see references contained in the article) and the photographer is anonymous. No licenses have been requested by the family and none are thought by them to be needed. Leopold7 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Any thoughts or advice Stefan2? Leopold7 (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the serious nature of this 'discussion', and the fact that I am being virtually accused of image theft/copyright infringement/fraud, I expected at least some response to my comments. Perhaps an administrator can help, as I originally requested on 11/04/2013.?? Leopold7 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Is this a place for discussion? If it is I see no discussion taking place and this is now my fourth response. If there is somewhere else to restate all of the above then I do not know where it is or how to access it. Is anyone other than myself actually looking at this page? Leopold7 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does the image come from? When was it taken? Where was it first published? Was it published anywhere before it appeared in the book from 2003? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the image come from? - It comes from its owners, the descendants of the subject of the picture, who have no objection to it being used to illustrate the article on their ancestor. when was it taken? - since the subject was born in 1834 and, in the image, he appears to be around forty years of age, it is believed that the original picture was taken circa 1875. Where was it first published? - It was not originally taken for publication but has been used by some people to illustrate their works when dealing with the subject. The best example of this is the 2003 book by a very eminent author (Olive Checkland, now deceased). Was it published anywhere before it appeared in the book from 2003? - Japan and Liverpool: James Lord Bowes and his legacy, Journal of the History of Collections, 12 No.1 (2000) pp.127-137, by Christina Baird. Also, Britain and Japan: Biographical portraits, Volume V1, Nicole Coolidge Rousmaniere. None of these authors had any doubts of its authenticity, nor of their right to use it as an 'out-of-copyright' image. Leopold7 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was it published anywhere before 2000? See Commons:COM:HIRTLE: photos taken before 1900 and first published in 2000 are protected by copyright in the United States until the end of 2047. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be found in The Liverpool Legion of Honour, by BG Orchard, Published Liverpool/Birkenhead 1893. Leopold7 (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, that should be enough. USA has stupid rules saying that nothing at all entered the public domain before 2003 unless published, and this sometimes causes annoying results for works which were first published a very long time after they were made. However, if it was published in the 19th century, it should be in the public domain. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:46, 20 April 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:ConventionPeoplesParty logo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Not clear why this would fall under the indicated licence. Stefan2 (talk) 14:54, 12 April 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Invalid PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 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 F1 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scott 1942.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Duplicate with different sources. Only one source can be correct. Unclear which one and what the correct licence status is. Stefan2 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rear Admiral Sir David Scott.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kermit Gosnell mug.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Appears to be a local mugshot, so {{PD-USGov}} would not apply. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, indeed, a local mugshot, but all local mugshots are also in the public domain. If Wikipedia has no template for that, then someone should develop one; but, to delete the image until one exists is tantamount to a court ruling that there's no constitutional right to privacy simply because it's not specifically enumerated in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. No constitutional scholar who hasn't fallen in his/her head too many times in life would ever deny that the clear and unambiguous right to privacy veritably lives in the third, fourth and fifth amendments; and so it tacitly exists. Privacy's lack of enumeration means nothing, then; and, in fact, to the suggestion that all rights should be specifically enumerated, one Georgian delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 famously said that “[i]f we list the set of rights, some fools in the future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no more.” Deleting this photo because it's a local mugshot and not a federal one, based on that there's no local Wikipedia mugshot template like there is a federal one, is exactly the same kind of foolishness. Some things are true, even if there's no law in one's book which expressly declares it so. That there's no template around here for local mugshots (if, in fact, that's the case) does not change the inalterable fact that all mugshots, regardless of police jurisdiction, are, prima facie, in the public domain; or, if they're not, then they're certainly fully released for unlimited fair use by media and book authors/publishers, and in encyclopedic content. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apparently not a work of the federal government, so the image infringes on the copyright of the state which produced the mugshot. Violates WP:NFCC#10a, so fair use is no option. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same mug on a few sites, if it were tracked down to fulfill WP:NFCC#10a, would we have legit fair use since now or need we wait till he is sentenced to death or a prison sentence so long that he will never leave (assuming he is found guilty and the evidence seems that way). Mugshots of famous criminals now behind bars have been used elsewhere on Wikipeidia as non-free (example: File:Hayes, steven.jpg for Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The matter is now settled. In the United States, in every US state, county and city, the officially elected or appointed prosecutor...

[Several paragraphs removed by their author, to shorten all of

this, because what was in them is now in the attestation, below]

...once I have it, I will upload it to Wikipedia, along with a .PDF of my affidavit attesting to everything I've herein written, and that will officially end this silly debate which should never have happened in the first place. Once I've done that, if those anally-retentive and officious around here would like to delete the copy of the mugshot that's now here, and use, instead, the one that I upload, then that's fine. At least then all i's will be dotted and t's crossed. Please now be patient, everyone, for that upload (just in case it takes her a few days to send it or something).

I say, again, though: All mugshots, regardless of the source (be it federal, state, county, city, township, berg or hamlet) are automatically in the public domain (or, if they're not, then they're automatically released for any public use; which is functioally the same); and anyone who routinely deals with them (as I once did when I worked for a newspaper) understands that. Why Wikipedia seems to be the last to know that, I do not know. And, again, if Wikipedia has no policy or template for that, then someone needs to make one, because this, that we've all just been through, here, is ridiculous!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have now received the official Gosnell mugshot. Here is my attestation, which I will use as the basis for my affidavit:

The attestaton of Gregg L. DesElms regarding the
use of the mugshot of Kermit Gosnell on Wikipedia

As of this writing on 18 April 2013, the use on Wikipedia of the mugshot of Kermit Gosnell, made on the occasion of his arrest on 20 January 2011, has been called into question on copyright grounds because unlike mugshots produced by federal law enforcement agencies, those produced by state and local ones are presumed, by Wikipedia, to be restricted by US copyright law from use on its site.

Everywhere in the United States, the elected or appointed prosecutor, known by whatever title, is the statutorily highest-ranking law enforcement official in whatever is his/her jurisdiction. As such, s/he has ultimate control over the copyright status of any and all documents, images or other works produced by not only his/her prosecutorial office, but also by any and all law enforcement agencies in his/her prosecutorial jurisdiction.

Kermit Gosnell was arrested by the Philadelphia Police Department, the jurisdictional prosecuting attorney for which is the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office; and the Director of Communications of which I contacted by telephone at 9:03 AM PDT on 18 April 2013 to discuss the perceived Wikipedia copyright issue with using the Gosnell mugshot. The Director insisted, emphatically, that there was no copyright issue; that mugshots are always presumed to be in the public domain; that anyone may request from police a mugshot of an arrested person for up to 30 days after his/her arrest, and may then use it however they wish; and that, in Gosnell's case, it was actually not merely her office, but her, personally, who publicly released the mugshot not only during the media frenzy at the time of Gosnell's arrest in 2011, but also more recently after the FOX NEWS CHANNEL reported that the mainstream media was generally not covering the story (for balance, see also this, and this), at which point she said she was inundated with new mugshot requests from media around the world.

I apologized for contributing to said inundation, and asked if she would officially release a mugshot of Gosnell to me expressly for use on Wikipedia (which I made sure she understood necessarily meant that it must be dedicated to the public domain). She agreed, and asked me to send her an email message containing my request, and our understanding; which I immediately did. The mugshot of Kermit Gosnell, digitally attached to an email message, was received by me at 9:20 AM PDT on 18 April 2013 from the Director of Communications of the Philadelphia District Attorney's office, with the clear and unambiguous understanding that it is expressly for use on Wikipedia and that, therefore, it would be dedicated to the public domain, and released for use therein.

It came to me as a 278K-bytes-sized portable document format (PDF) file named "gosnell mug.pdf" which depicts an 8.5-inch-by-11-inch piece of common white copy or printer paper -- the very kind of paper with a mugshot on it that is handed to any member of the media who in-person requests a mugshot from the Philadelphia Police Department -- on which paper Gosnell's color mugshot is sized approximately 6 inches tall by 5 inches wide; with a little less than 2 inches of white space to its both left and right; and with approximately 3 inches of white space above it, and approximately 2 inches below it.

In the aforementioned approximately three inches of white space above the mugshot are the vertically-centered and left-justified words "Philadelphia District Attorney" in bold, approximately 24-point type in the Times-Roman font; to the right of which is the approximately 1-1/2-inch, right-justified and also vertically-centered color logo of the Philadelphia Police Department.

In the white space beneath the mugshot, a little less than 1/2-inch beneath it, are the right-justified line of text "Phil Arrestee Database Printed Philadelphia DA: 1/20/2011 12:35 P.M." in a bold, approximately 8-point sans-serif font.

On the paper's topmost line are the words "Single Image", left-justified and in unbolded approximately 11-point type in the Times-Roman font; to the right of which is the right-justified text string "Page 1 of 1" in the same unbolded approximately 11-point Times-Roman font.

On the paper's bottommost line is the left-justified (and trucated, because of its excessive length) URL to the mugshot's page on the city's internal intranet server; and to its right is the right-justified date "1/20/2011", both of which items on that bottommost line are also in unbolded approximately 11-point type in the Times-Roman font.

The page was obviously, then, printed from a web browser either to a PDF printer driver to create the PDF file; or, more likely, to a regular printer which produced an actual paper page, which page was then scanned into the PDF file named "gosnell mug.pdf" that was then sent to me. That it was likely the latter is evidenced by that the mugshot photo contains the very same "vertical stripes" shown in the one originally uploaded by user "Difluoroethene" on 23 Jan 2011, but which stripes were subsequently digitally removed that same day by user "Quibik". (See the file's history on its Wikipedia page.) Such stripes are typical of a color copier or printer that's having problems with things like corona wires, developer, and other such things. The source of the version uploaded by user "Difluoroethene" is, then, likely official (e.g., the police or district attorney's office), as is my source. It is the digitially-edited version, though, by user "Quibik," which is the current (and I dare say "preferred") version currently (at this writing) in use on Wikipedia.

I will now prepare a signed and sworn affidavit containing all that is in this attestation; then I'll convert it to a PDF file, and make it available online so it may be linked to and cited; and I will include said link on the Gosnell image mugshot page here on Wikipedia. So that the current, better-looking, digitally-edited version of the mugshot may remain the version used on Wikipedia, said affidavit will reflect that said edited version visually appears identical to the one which I received today from the Philadelphia District Attorney's office, expressly for use on Wikipedia, save for the removal of said vertical stripes.

— ATTESTETH: Gregg L. DesElms, 18 April 2013

I will post, here, when it's done. And so that, then, is the end of that!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any permission like that should go to OTRS so that a proper licence template can be created. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand, Stefan2: Are you saying that... [Removed by DesElms; see additional comment, below] ...more about that. Thanks!
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, strike the immediately above. Having looked more closely at that to which you linked me, I can see that you're talking about for this specific situation. Understood. I'll look into it.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this photo was taken by the Philadelphia Police Department, whose terms of service state: "Permission is granted to residents and citizens of the City of Philadelphia to copy electronically and to print single pages from this site exactly as presented on this site, without any addition or modification, for the sole purpose of sharing public safety information with other citizens and residents, and on the condition that the pages are copied, printed, and shared without cost to the recipients. Distribution, or republication in any other form or for any other purpose, including any commercial purpose or use, and any modification to the page(s) whatsoever, are strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the City of Philadelphia or the Philadelphia Police Department." TL;DR: No commercial reuse, Philly PD content not free. [UNSIGNED] ← The bracketed word "UNSIGNED" added by User:Deselms; see the posting immediately below.

User:Deselms writes, to the reader: The page history shows that the above comment was made by user "Arbor to SJ", but is unsigned. Perhaps s/he forgot. I've done that, too; no harm, no foul. I'll go, now to his/her "Talk" page and point it out to him/her (and so if it is signed at that time you're reading it, then it means that s/he came back and signed it at my urging). While I'm at it, though, I'm also make sure that user "Arbor to SJ" knows about what next I write here (which is more consideration than his/her unilateral behavior offered me), to wit:

User:Deselms writes to User:Arbor to SJ: I confess to being something akin to furious at your actions; though not so much your actions here because, after all, you have absolute right to post what you've here posted, and to have the opinion set forth therein. Such is part of the ongoing discussion; part of getting it all worked out, as the invitation to so do beneath the mugshot in the main Kermit Gosness article suggested we all have the right to do... a right of which you've now effectively deprived everyone behind you, as I describe in the next paragraph.

Rather than being upset with what you posted -- albeit unsigned -- here, I'm furious at your having actually acted on the matter by going ahead and unilaterally deleting the mugshot from the main Gosnell article based on your mere belief and opinion, at this point, that that's how it should be handled; and your further belief, apparently, that that's all that's necessary around here for a mere editor to do such a thing, despite the true facts of what's actually going on and the reasonable delay, both on their account and under their circumstances, which any reasonable person would agree is warranted.

What part of my above attestation did you either not read; or, if you did, then what part of it did you not understand? It's as if you've just come-in here, like a bull in a china shop; and though you're but an editor, like me, you've lowered your unilateral hammer on me like an admin, without so much as mentioning it on the main article's "Talk" page (which, right there, even if it's ultimately determined that you're right to have done what you've done, is the very sort of thing for which editors, around here, routinely get into trouble). Worse, though, how is it possible that you could not see that regardless what is posted on the Philadelphia Police Department's website, the matter is nevertheless being resolved by a higher authority who has the power to override that? I remember tangling with a mere paralegal one time who insisted that once a contract is drafted by an attorney for the signature of two parties, neither party may subsequently modify its terms... as if the attorney's imprimatur somehow rendered it carved in stone. She was right-brained, pathologically officious, and knew just enough about the law to not realize what she didn't actually know, and so was dangerous. You strike me as similar of mindset because you apparently think that because it's written on the Philadelphia Police Department's website, it cannot be, on a case-by-case basis, overridden. Either that, or, you didn't actually read my attestation, and so you didn't realize that that was the case; and that the mechanism for Wikipedia's use of the image was fully engaged and actively achieving it, even as you wrote what you wrote, here, and even as you went out and unilaterally screwed around with it.

The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, as the highest-ranking law enforcement office in the Philadelphia Police Department's jurisdiction, has full and final authority over the copyright status of the mugshot; and has the power, then, to release to, in effect, the public domain; to override whatever is published on the website of the Philadelphia Police Department on a case-by-case basis; and, in this case, the District Attorney's Office has done precisely that! What part of that did you miss in my attestation, above?

Moreover, it is (or at least should be) painfully clear to anyone who bothers to read the entire discussion, here -- and especially my attestation, above, which I set out in a quotation box so that it couldn't possibly be missed by anyone who is operating, at the very least, pursuant to the tenets of due both care and process -- that I was (and still am), even as you wrote what you wrote, right in the middle of formalizing the evidence of said release by the District Attorney's Office, including not only the preparation of my sworn affidavit based on my above attestation, as clearly set forth therein; but also, pursuant to userStefan2's subsequent suggestion that I get the Director of Communications at the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office to send an email message to OTRS, pursuant to WP:CONSENT, which would ultimately settle the matter even without my affidavit.

Such things take time, though; and Wikipedia policy and guidelines clearly allow for such time being taken -- a reasonable delay -- whenever there's a real likelihood of that what is being attempted during said delay will succeed and ultimately inure to Wikipedia's benefit, as is the case, here. At this point, even if Wikipedia got sued, today, by the Philadelphia Police Department for a copyright violation on account of its use Gosnell mugshot; and even if the District Attorney's Office tried to deny that it ever gave permission, it has (or at least soon will) my sworn affidavit, which will include a copy of the permission-granting email, including full header (for verification against its server as proof that it was really sent). With just that, no lawsuit would survive preliminary hearing, and would, then, die before it could even get started. But even if that weren't enough, there is an overwhelming body of evidence of the Director of Communication's previous releas of the mugshot "to the wild" for effective public domain use. She said and wrote it to me; and she and wrote it to countless others. The mugshot, trust me, is effectively in the public domain; and is released to Wikipedia for its, and its downstream users' unlimited -- including commercial -- use!

Knowing that this whole thing was right in the middle of being resolved to that ultimate end; and knowing, from my above attestation (which I suspect you didn't even bother reading, hence my bull in a china shop characterization), that my painstakingly-documening that I am going about those no small labors in sufficiently both good faith and due speed warrants a reasonable delay in deleting the image, while it all gets settled, you nevertheless went ahed and deleted it from the main Gosnell article, anyway...

...all without, again, so much as a mention of it on its "Talk" page; and also ignoring that it's being discussed and resolved, here, as it said right under said image on said main article page. I further suspect (though cannot yet prove; but which Wikipedia could certainly prove) that you're also the user of the anonymous IP address who deleted my note referring to all this beneath the PUF notice on its page. I put it there precisely so that no one -- at least no one who's both reasonable and fair-minded -- would rush to delete the mugshot from either the main Gosnell article, or from Wikipedia, generally, until this could all get resolvved. Apparently, though, that wasn't good enough for you (or for at least whomever removed said note, if it wasn't you).

There is no word, then, which better fits what you have done than "recklessness;" and, worse, that which you have done already warrants a filing by me of an official request by me for dispute resolution and disciplinary action against you -- which I'd be willing to take to arbitration, if need be -- with Wikipedia. I will not file it, however, if you will now back down from your recklessness and allow the process which I have begun to work itself out to its logical and likely-in-Wikipedia's-favor end by not reversing what I am now going to do, to wit: Reversing all that you have reckelessly done, as I've herein described. The filing of a dispute resolution and/or arbitration is not a threat, by the way; it is simply a fair and friendly warning. I'm angry, I confess, but that doesn't affect my sense of fair play, or reasonableness. You, on the other hand, are not being reasonable; you are, in fact, being arrogantly peremptory and autocratic -- despotic, even -- and I'm reasonably certain that I can show that to Wikipedia in a dispute resolution and/or arbitration case. What I have written on this page, alone, without my even making a further argument, is likely enough; and so is prima facie evidence of that you're seriously out of line, here... hence, the reason I've so painstakingly written it. It and its length may bore others to tears, but it's part of my laying-out what I hope will not become a dispute resolution case between us, here, on Wikipedia.

Deleting the image might have been appropriate had no one been actively in pursuit of a resolution. You officiously and imperiously ignored that I am; and that said pursuit wasn't even 24 hours old! That's not what Wikipedia is all about. If editors are allowed to sweep through this place, unabated, and do what you have done with such undue speed and ultimate recklessness, then nothing fair or balanced or honorable would ever get done around this place! No wonder so many who have edited here end-up quitting, and then writing about what an awful place this can be! Dealing with your likes can be exhausting! Who has time for that, in life? Shame on you! Stand down from your zealotry. This is supposed to be a community. Stop being the member of it whom at least some other of its members revile.

I'm now going to go reverse what you've done. Please do not reverse it back unless you want to tangle with me in a far more official manner; and please, then, just give the entire process a reasonable chance to go its full course. It won't take much longer; and when it's done, trust me, the Gosnell mugshot will positively be usable by Wikipedia pursuant to, likely, the {{cc-zero}} template which, if you'll bother to read it, is the most wide-open and permissable template there is; and allows not only Wikipedia to use the mugshot, but also all of its downstream users, in a completely unlimited manner, including even for commercial purposes...

...which, of course, is the very both definition and purpose of "public domain." Why you cannot wait for this process to come to that wonderful-for-Wikipedia conclusion, I do not know. I can, of course, based on what I've read of your political leanings, and how they likely lead you to not want Gosnell humanized in any manner by such as a mugshot of him which does not portray him with horns, as Satan, speculate on why you'd not want to wait, but I will not... er... you know... not any more than I just did.

So, then, "Arbor to SJ," let's stand-down from all this, shall we? Be reasonable. Be patient. It's getting worked-out. For you to ignore that, now that you've read this, deserves nothing short of disciplinary action against you on Wikipedia's part; and if you will not cooperate, I'll petition Wikipedia for precisely that outcome... again, not a threat, just a friendly warning. Wikipedia cannot have people unilaterally sweeping through its articles and deleting things... especially when it's painfully obvious that there's a proces occuring, even as the deletion occurs, to make it so that no such deletion is ultimatelly necessary. I don't know how much clearer I could have made it, here, that I am taking responsibility for that; that's why I wrote so much, to thoroughly document it!

Yet you just ignored it... recklessly unilaterally, like the aforementioned bull.

I'll further promise you that I'll take responsibility for all this; that it will, in fact, be me who finally removes the mugshot from the main Gosnell article -- and from Wikipedia, itself -- if I can't ultimately get the proper prmissions (which, technically, I've already gotten, but I'm just sayin'). You needn't worry about it! So, please stop. I've got this; and it will absolutely end, one way or another, in a manner which completely protects Wikipedia's legal interests; and it will be timely accomplished. I'm not dilly-dallying around, here. I was working on this this very morning -- depite that I would have preferred to watch CNN's coverage of the Boston Marathon bomber suspects story -- when I discovered your unilateral and reckless actions... and, yes, it made my angry... yes, even furious. But at least I stay within Wikipedia's system, here, by fully documenting everything, and being objectively reasonable: unlike you.

I go, now, to reverse what you have done, today. Please, while this all gets worked-out, do not reverse it back, again; else it will be clearly and unambiguously you, and not me, who is being heavy-handed, intentionally ignoring extenusing circumstances, and so, then, operating contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.

Thank you. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It seems that someone beat me to reversing the mugshot's removal from the main Kermit Gosnell article. That's fine, as long as it got done. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirmation needed direct from copyright holder if kept: It needs direct confirmation by the copyright holder direct to Wikipedia's permissions email volunteer team to confirm consent. For our purposes, consent should cover commercial and non commercial use, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, because Wikipedia itself is not an "end user"; its content only exists for reader use. Only the copyright holder can confirm to us, their consent. We do not rely on confirmations (even legally attested) from third parties. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details.

  Wikipedia editors and the community are (of course) aware we use far more stringent criteria for consent and free use than many websites and media. That's because we aren't in a race against others to get coverage, and we have a slightly more ethical and legal-compliant approach to reuse than some people are used to. For the same reason we don't rely on "effectively" in the public domain (you may think this is an insane counterproductive restriction, but it is our community's long-standing and voluntarily chosen self-restriction).

What's needed is not lengthy writing here, but for the police or prosecutor to provide their chosen image and consent to us directly in the form these pages suggest. With luck they will be willing. Explain it's because we are over cautious on copyright, if you like. If they do not, then we either need to find a free image by someone else (difficult?) or we don't have one in the article (even if it would detract to remove it).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:38, 20 April 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.