Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

August 30

File:Moses Baca mug shot.png

1935 mugshot, apparently created by the State of Colorado which can hold copyright. It's unclear when this was first published. If it was c. 1935, it's almost certainly public domain. If it was recent, this needs an appropriate fair use rationale to be kept. —Guan aco 08:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as {{PD-US-not renewed}}. 1935? Even in the extremely unlikely event that it was first published with a copyright notice (basically no chance of that), there is no way in heck that the copyright was renewed (no state is going to waste time renewing copyrights of mugshots). --B (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One likely possibility is that the mugshot was kept as a state record and not actually published until recently. If so, it's copyrighted. —Guan aco 02:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:DOEACC Logo.jpg

Non-free logo that is being used as primary identification in National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology. there are two other uses claimed but one is a redirect and the other doe snot actually use the images. The primary identification is however being done performed with File:NIELIT Logo.jpg. This is a violation of WP:NFCC#3a as we do not need two logos for identification. this is especially true when it is not at all clear that this is a organisational logo. The source URL provided https://www.nielit.gov.in/ doe not work. Using HTTP instead of HTTPS does resolve but http://www.nielit.gov.in/ does not seem to have this logo anywhere. As such WP:NFCC#10a is not met either. Whpq (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization has rebranded as NIELIT. The old logo identifies the previous brand and is still used at http://www.doeacc.info/doeacc_headquater.php but I cannot confirm that this is an official site. Another editor originally uploaded the logo to Commons where it was likely to be deleted, so I added it at English Wikipedia. When you have two identifies, one current and one historical, you need two logos. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Organisations change their name and / or branding, but we do not keep their old logos unless the logos themselves are the subject of significant sourced commentary. --

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from National Institute of Electronics & Information Technology. If the article doesn't discuss the old branding, we don't need to show what it looked like. Neither is it needed for identifying the organization at present.

Keep in Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Classes for the time being but it appears that the two articles ought to be merged. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Year 2000 North Korea stamp commemorating the North Korea-loyal "Unconverted long-term prisoners" held in prison in South Korea (비전향 장기수).png

Very large non-free image (1.2Mpx). The question is keep? / reduce? / delete? I've set for no reduce for the purpose of this discussion. Allowing the facility to "zoom in", somewhat goes against NF policy. The need for text is also questionable as WP:NFC says An original, high resolution image (that can be reasonably scaled down to maintain overall artistic and critical details) may lose some text detail Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, thank you for starting this discussion of this file I uploaded yesterday. I was aware that the image was larger than usual, and in good faith I uploaded the image including within the rationale a request for an exception. So I look forward to this assessment by the Wiki community. Part of the upload justification in the file page reads as follows:

This image will be used as the primary means of visual identification of 63 persons in the article that talks about them. It would have been categorized as an historic portrait, was it not for the fact that some of the individuals are still alive. This upload is the most efficient way of providing visual identification of all 63 individuals, within just one file.

NOTE ON IMAGE SIZE: Wikipedia's Non-free content policy indicates that WP:Image resolution should be kept as low as possible. Usually it should be kept under 100,000 pixels. When larger "Images which need for some reason to be larger than this need a detailed justification given; otherwise they should be resized or deleted". This image merits an exception and here is the special justification for being larger. First, even though technically the pixel resolution is of 1293 × 925, the spatial resolution is lower than that (this was achieved with a two-step process of scanning the source book, and then taking a screen shot). Second, and more importantly, part of the purpose of displaying this image is so that 63 individuals, with their portrait pictures as well as their names, can be visible and legible respectively. A zoom-in to any one portrait in the file will demonstrate how the actual resolution per portrait is low; quite pixelated, as well as the captions under each. However, this resolution still allows it to be reasonably legible. Reducing further the resolution would render the text in the image illegible, and the image would lose an important part of its value.

Image at left has a higher pixel count than the one to the right, but is still of worse spatial resolution.

As for the pixel count, I want to draw attention to the distinction between pixel resolution and spatial resolution, as indicated in rationale above. See illustrative example to the right.

However, this is just a basic technical consideration. The core of the matter is whether this upload, which efficiently, within one single file, includes portraits of 63 individuals that are the direct topic of the article, can be kept at the size it was uploaded.

One more thing: Ron refers to WP:IMAGERES policy which says that loss of text detail is usually acceptable. I would like to posit that the only practical way to identify the image of the person, with the name, is to maintain enough resolution so that the text is legible (without needing to be crisp-- a balance I was aiming to strike in the current upload size). The usual alternative, which is to transcribe the names (and other data) and location of 63 individuals within the image, into the description of the image, seems unpractical for the readers to make sense of it in this case.

I look forward to the community assessment. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 19:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that I am not especially knowledgeable on the meaning on spatial resolution. There is a chance that my interpretation of it is incorrect. I am open to being disabused. In any case, the core of the rationale for inclusion of non-free image, and then its unusually large size, hinge on another considerations as outlined above. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 23:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the stamp is being used as a de facto gallery of fair-use images and we don't do that. --B (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the applicability of that gallery policy. This is as much a "de facto gallery", as a single photograph of a group of people. The image presented here is a scan of one original work; I have not scanned multiple works and put them together into one single file (that is what that gallery policy is about). Many original works derive elements from multiple, prior works, but when enough additional work has happened on them, they are treated as a new work that stands on itself. I am on the road and I can further engage in this deliberation on the weekend weekend. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 22:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

further and to my point, the gallery guidelines state "A montage created by the copyright holder of the images used to create the montage is considered a single non-free item and not separate items." So again, an argument to delete based on that guideline is actually without base. thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 04:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is not quite gallery usage, as Al83tito demonstrates. What it is is explained in WP:NFC#UUI§1 and the counterindication in italics. It's not a clear-cut case – and exceptional work has been made with the rationale and arguments here – however I believe that the use does not meet NFC for the reasons:

It is fundamentally a group picture – of sorts – of people some of whom are alive and some of whom are deceased. We don't need this particular picture to identify these people. As a matter of fact, we don't need any group picture to identify them. An individual portrait for each would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. But for individual portraits, pictures of those who are alive are replaceable. Although the rationale states "No reasonable expectation to acquire a free image given that the individuals reside in North Korea", this or any other argument like it has never fared at FFD, including in discussions specific to North Korea.

I was asked to comment here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,@Finnusertop:, for your contribution to the discussion here. I respect your views and I am digesting them. As I understand it, your point is basically that the image is inadmissible at this point because some of the people in the image are still alive. In your view, if at some future point after all of the individuals are deceased, and no other free image of them has emerged in the intervening period, would, in your interpretation of the policies, this image be admissible then? Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 06:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Al83tito: well it would solve that particular problem with the image, but like I said, we're not dealing with a clear-cut case. It could really go either way. The underlying size issue would remain. And contextual significance is unclear here when the article talks about these people (but not their looks), but the stamp (and its appearance in particular) is not discussed. That should be looked at in context of replaceability. As I said above, we don't need this particular image of the people (esp. when the stamp is not discussed). The question would be can we find other images (when taking new photos is no longer an option) or are we stuck with this one. And, to reiterate, even then, contextual significance is far from settled. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tide Mills tidal and wind mill.jpg

Photograph apparently taken of a photograph in a museum, with no attribution or context for the original photo. Can't reliably flag it as {{PD-UK-unknown}} as it may have been a previously private photo donated to the museum. Lord Belbury (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The file is a picture taken of a plaque in position out of doors in the Tide Mills complex, It is Fair Use because it is used for educational or discussion purposes in that a point made in it is discussed either in articles using the picture, or in the description of the picture when uploaded, or in both. Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Timtrent: There seem to be two copyrights which need to be resolved here: (1) the copyright of the underlying work, and (2) the copyright of the photo of the underlying work. The latter is easily dealt with by the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, but it's the former which may prove to be more of a problem to resolve. Can you provide any more information about the underlying work? For example, who created it and when they created it, etc. Did you scan it from a book or was it part of some exhibition you attended? Any clarification you can provide will help in assessing its copyright status. Its possible that it's old enough ago to be within the public domain, but this just cannot be automatically assumed.
  If the underlying work's copyright status, however, cannot be verified, then the file most likely needs to be deleted. Relevant Wikipedia policy related to non-free content has been set up to be much more restrictive than the practice of fair use/fair dealing per WP:NFC#Background and files cannot simply be kept by claiiming WP:ITSFAIRUSE. It's unlikely that the underlying work would meet WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8 even if a non-free copyright license were added for it; so, the best chance for keeping it is to figure out whether its old enough, etc. to be PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs details of original publication to meet NFCC (esp. #4 since "on display" is not publication). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a public display board, mounted in the open air on the Tide Mills site. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retag as fair use WP:NFCC#4 is not a valid reason for deletion. The point of WP:NFCC#4 is someone cannot contribute a photo here for "fair use" and decline to publish it under a free license. We would insist that, if we're going to be the original publisher of a contributed photo that it be under a free license. WP:NFCC#4 does not require and has never required print or web distribution of the work. For example, we have plenty of photos of copyrighted statues on Wikipedia used under a claim of fair use and those statues were no more nor less published than this plaque. Though it is distinctly likely that the underlying photo is public domain, it can't be proven and unfortunately freedom of panorama in the UK does not apply to displays of this kind. --B (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my comment as NFCC#4 identifies either publication or public display as prerequisites. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like we might have a case for relicensing here, but this file will need a WP:NFCC#8 rationale if so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded this file under less stringent (presumably) criteria on Wikipedia in 2006. I am not active here and have not been for some years now, and I have forgotten much of what I knew. A Fair Use rationale for the file is that there appear to be no other references which show that the village, now gone, of Tide Mills had a wind mill as well as a tide mill. I believe such a juxtaposition of mills is at least unusual, perhaps unique. Thus the picture acts as a reference for this twin milled status, and increases the reader's understanding of the site. I am sure one of you is competent to re-tag the picture and to add the rationale, and hope someone will take this task on. There is a danger that, when the display board falls into disrepair, the information it contains will be lost, and that Wikipedia will be the sole repository. Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have made an attempt at a correct Fair Use Rationale, highlighting my comment above. Wiser editors than I may wish to rephrase some or all of it or to correct any area where I am in error. I believe that all the work is now in place, or at least in hand, to allow the file to be preserved. Fiddle Faddle 14:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:SG 39 Cipher Device.jpg

tagged OTRS received for over 7 months. After reviewing the associated ticket, I think it is unlikely that permission will be confirmed FASTILY 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a public domain image, that was confirmed by the Mrs Rene S Stein NSA Librarian (Here she is: [1], when it was uploaded. The last I heard, the Wikipedia Foundation were in conversation with the NSA for the use of their images, for the whole Wikipedia platform. That was more than a year ago. Not heard anything back since. I tried to contact Rene around at that time, to get a OTRS Ticket fulfilled and was informed that the Foundation was talking to then. The document the image is taken from US Military document that was released by the NSA as no longer secret and as such it is public domain. scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the document it comes from: [2]. It clearly states it is distributed free. scope_creep (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does that include commercial redistribution and modification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 04:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: The issue isn't whether the booklet is distributed without cost ("free" in the sense of "free pizza") — the issue is whether the image is free of copyright restrictions (free content). Unfortunately, the booklet doesn't credit the source of the image, so just from looking at the booklet, we can't tell whether the image was a US-government-authored image (public domain), a Nazi-authored image seized by the US government and determined to be public domain under US law (see Template:PD-HHOFFMANN for an example of these), an image authored by the British government (which would be public domain if it were taken prior to 1957), or an image authored by some other person, which is likely still under copyright. @Fastily: can you please tell us the nature of the OTRS ticket? Was it from a librarian purporting to be the copyright holder and granting a copyright release? (That's not worth the paper it isn't printed on.) Or was it from someone purporting to give us the provenance of the image in one of the above four categories? --B (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to post the email here? The email I received, from Patrick Williams, who tried to contact Ms Rene Stein, and successfully contacted me. This is that email. That was on 18th February 2017, and I've not heard anything since.

Dear Rene Stein,

Were these photos taken by a US federal employee in the course of their duties? If so then per Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code it is automatically in the public domain. If not, I need some information regarding who took the photos (if known) and when exactly they were taken. Regardless, it is likely that any possible copyright on these images has expired but I'd like to be certain. Thank you and if you have any questions please let me know.

Yours sincerely, Patrick Williams Permissions ticket number: Ticket#2018011110009211

And then I sent this:

RE: [Ticket#2018011110009211] FW: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob Watson Permissions (permissions@wikimedia.org) Hi Patrick. I can't get hold of Rene. It's possible he is on holiday or snowed in. The image is from a world war 2 device. The whole document is about world war 2 devices. Thanks. Bob

Rene is a women if you happen to contact her. Here is the Rene Stein email.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RE: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob - So sorry to take so long in getting this to you. I had to wait for the history people to transfer the pictures to me. There are two of the SG-39 and two of the SG-41. We don't have any of the other items so I can't help you there. However you may want to try the Cryptomuseum.com people. Please credit NSA for the photos. Thanks for your patience. Rene

Original Message-----

From: XXXX [3] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 5:42 AM To: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Dear Ms Rene Stein, I got a nice image of the SG 41 off of Klaus Schmeh, which he uploaded to Wikipedia commons, but so far no images of the SG39, Schlüsselkasten, Schlüsselscheibe or Schlüssselrad. I've put the image of SG41 into the Fritz Menzer article at https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Fritz_Menzer#Menzer.27s_Inventions If I can't get an image of those last three images, I would use the ones from the document as they are all we've got, although they are not ideal. Is there any particular copyright licence you would like to attach to them. Yours Sincerely. Bob

Original Message-----

From: Stein, Rene S. [4] Sent: 06 February 2017 16:08 To: 'XXXXX' <scope_creep@hotmail.com> Cc: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: RE: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Bob - If you want to use the photos in the publication, that's fine. However I am assuming that you would like better ones. I have a photo of an SG-41 that we have at the museum and I am trying to get one of the SG-39 from Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Tue 14/02/2017 16:36 To:'Bob Watson' <scope_creep@hotmail.com>; 4 attachments (2 MB) 200710231440.jpg; 200710231440-2.jpg; SG-39-1.jpg; SG-39-2.jpg; Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 1 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38 the History people. We don't have one of the Lückenfüllerwalze. I noticed that the Crypto-Museum website has one. Maybe they will allow you to use theirs. Please let me know if the photos from the publication suit your needs or you wanted something else. Thanks, Rene

Original Message-----

From: XXXXXX [5] Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:21 AM To: Stein, Rene S. <rsstein@nsa.gov> Subject: Licencing of images for Wikipedia Dear Ms. Rene Stein I am contacting you regarding possibly licensing some images in a NSA document that I received from a contact. I spoked to Klaus Schmeh klaus@schmeh.org <mailto:klaus@schmeh.org> regarding a web site he created, which had several images of German World War II cryptographic machines, and he informed me that they were licenced from a document received from yourself and he gave me your contact details. The document is located at: https://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/wwii/assets/files /german_cipher.pdf. As regards myself, I'm an editor in Wikipedia, and I'm currently writing an article on Fritz Menzer, who was an inventor during WW2. Here is the location: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Menzer I'm trying to get licensable images for the Lückenfüllerwalze, Schlüsselgerät 39, Schlüsselgerät 41 devices and so on. Essentially all the devices in that list, would be better if they had images of some sort. It's very hard to imagine what they looked like from their description, which is all I have at the moment. Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 2 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38 My editor name is: scope_creep Thanks for your time. Yours Sincerely XXXXX Mail – scope_creep@hotmail.com https://outlook.live.com/owa/?path=/mail/search/rp 3 of 3 20/08/2018, 16:38

scope_creep (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: my gut says its likely public domain (probably a government photographer) but unfortunately nothing in this email chain tells us that. --B (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is public domain. You could contact the WMF guy Patrick Williams and determine the what happened to the conversation that supposedly took place. scope_creep (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily (who nominated the image for deletion) is an OTRS agent and he has access to the conversation. He reviewed Patrick's conversation and said he couldn't find sufficient evidence that the image is PD. --B (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I known, that is because the conversation was half completed. Please contact Patrick Williams and find out what was said. It seemed to stop halfway through. For what reason I don't know. Contacting the current NSA librarian might be a good ideas as well. I don't mind waiting for a week or two while you get it sorted. I will contact the current NSA librarian, if I can find his name. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Fastily: in case there is some followup on the OTRS ticket that can be done. @Scope creep: I don't have access to OTRS (I used to, but due to time constraints was not able to stay active) and so I can't see what is in the system regarding Patrick's conversation. --B (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B, I found out that Rene Stein is still the librarian of the NSA. So Im going to email her in the morning. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@B: There have been no new developments in ticket:2018011110009211 since January 13, 2018. -FASTILY 04:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have forwarded an email to the NSA librarian, Rene Stein, and hopefully I will get a wee affidavit back saying it is in public domain. scope_creep (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I not managed to contact Ms Stein. I guess I will upload it as FU. scope_creep (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ive not managed to contact Ms Stein. I guess I will upload it as FU. scope_creep (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with a file below, this seems like it merits non-free status but we'd need a WP:NFCC#8 rationale then.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sláinte.JPG

Orphaned, no likely encyclopedic use. And bonus points for the humorous claim of copyright ownership: "I created this work entirely by myself, with my toe and a pulley device." B (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is factual. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Let me understand. So you asked your girlfriend to come out to dinner at a restaurant. You then packed a bag containing a tripod, pulley, and rope. She said "what is this for?" You replied "why, so we can take our picture, of course." She asked, "why can't we just hand the camera to the server and ask him or her to take it?" You replied, "because then, two months later, when I want to upload the photo to Wikipedia, I won't be able to because the server will own the copyright." She then said, "well couldn't we use a selfie stick?" You said, "no - this is 2008 - selfie sticks won't be invented until 2014 - and besides, using a selfie stick in a restaurant is gauche." She replied, "but rigging up a pulley system, taking off your shoe, and taking a photo with your foot isn't?" You smiled at her and said, "I'm glad you understand." --B (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]