Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
should be listed on Wikipedia:Files for discussion. This noticeboard has been closed as a result of this discussion. Shortcuts WP:PUIWP:PUI WP:PUFWP:PUF...
Click to read more »guidelines for administrators. After the file's section header, add: {{subst:puf top|'''Result.'''}} ~~~~ (where Result is usually either Delete. or Keep...
Click to read more »and WP:PUF, and fix the headers if they get removed or damaged. Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:AnomieBOT#WP:PUF/WP:FFD clerking...
Click to read more »replication of a file (File:NDENIS FOTO -1.jpg) that was deleted after a previous PUF. See [1]. Even if properly licensed on Flickr, this photo would still be...
Click to read more »unfree files (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Part of WP:PUF, which is no longer active. ~ RobTalk 20:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Delete Doesn't...
Click to read more »periods of time. Possible venues to use instead are WP:FFD, WP:MCQ and WP:PUF. However there were counter arguments that none of these is the right place...
Click to read more »since FfD and PUF are essentially duplicating work and many (if not most) editors are not aware of PUF (for example, I was not aware PUF existed), they...
Click to read more »discussion was: No consensus to delete the image,; file is tagged as non-free, so PUF is the wrong venue. Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) File:Popcorn...
Click to read more »June 2012 (UTC) CLOSE THIS LISTING: The PUF tag has been replaced with {{npd}} as instructed on the face of the PUF tag itself. It will be deleted June 15...
Click to read more »Continue to require adding "Template:pufc" to image captions as part of the WP:PUF process. Preventing vandalism with the article feedback tool ← Previous "Discussion...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »talk | history | links | watch | logs) Old TOC "template" specifically for PUF. No longer used; no longer needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:58...
Click to read more »RobTalk 03:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Template:Puf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) As WP:PUF is now closed, this template can either be...
Click to read more »result of the discussion was wrong venue. Use {{di-no permission}} or WP:PUF. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC) No proper permission. It is not...
Click to read more »jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Not sure that chart is PUF but it has no source and thus even if user-generated there is no way to verify...
Click to read more »December 2009 (UTC) Delete per Drdisque. Those two images are also potential PUF noms. ZooFari 04:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough...
Click to read more »to this page. The result of the discussion was Speedy close and move to PUF, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:17,...
Click to read more »the network. Looie496 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I've raised a WP:PUF for an image with confusing EXIF information — specifically, a public domain...
Click to read more »files/NewListings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Now that WP:PUF is closed, we don't need this subpage anymore. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:37...
Click to read more »confidence either. --Avenue (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Now listed at WP:PUF. --Avenue (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Dang, I was kinda half-expecting...
Click to read more »XFD subpage. Merge into either WP:RM or WP:CFD per precedent (SFD, UCFD, PUF). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC) @KATMAKROFAN: I removed...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »discussions closed when the template is deleted (as it does at WP:FFD and WP:PUF). Note it is clearly specified that this bullet applies only to WP:TFD and...
Click to read more »October 2011 (UTC) Oppose I have placed multiple images in the article up at PUF. Until that is resolved, or the images are removed, I must oppose. Sven Manguard...
Click to read more »June 2010 (UTC) Clerk declined Misfiled, should have been handled at WP:PUF. MLauba (Talk) 09:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC) M Battery Royal Horse Artillery...
Click to read more »not PUF, since under US-law, this isn't protected -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Cases like this are typically handled at PUF. Not...
Click to read more »more appropriate? The templates for PUF are apparently misworded for cases like this, since they suggest that PUF is a forum for discussing the deletion...
Click to read more »contribs | uploads | upload log). Previously discussed at now-defunct venue WP:PUF fifteen years ago, but it was more about licensing compatibility of author's...
Click to read more »author. Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC) The uploader removed the PUF tag, but I still don't think that the image is free, so I readded it. The...
Click to read more »into this category. A page is put into this category when {{Ffd top}} or {{Puf top}} is transcluded or substituted; what this means is that since WP:FFD...
Click to read more »_King_of_Hearts_advice_-_why.3F. You can't tag a PUF discussion with {{bots|deny=AnomieBOT}}. WP:PUF is for discussions about files which exist. It's...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »response. DSRH |talk 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC) - Wrong venue, copied to WP:PUF, left note to filer to complete the nomination process there. MLauba (talk)...
Click to read more »the link that User:GrapedApe gave at Commons a couple of hours after this PUF was filed. A marker with precisely the same text (but without a copyright...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »party to stay away from LS polls". The Kashmir Pulse. Retrieved 2019-07-04. "PUF united voice of J&K people: Shah Faesal". Greater Kashmir. 2019-06-23. Retrieved...
Click to read more »notification process for either forum just mentioned (FFD or PUF); those templates are {{Fdw}} and {{Fdw-puf}}, respectively. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 4 November...
Click to read more »problem, as the file is on Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia, and the "puf" template didn't seem to work properly when I added it to the file's page...
Click to read more »Melissarogue's other contributions having problematic copyright issues (see this PUF and this ANI for discussion), even thought I haven't found this uploaded...
Click to read more »copyvio. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC) PUFs should go at, er, WP:PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »the Ogre (t • c) 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC) There are no transclusions and PUF has closed, so it should be fine to delete the template. --Stefan2 (talk)...
Click to read more »Thumbprint.png File:Carlisle Tobacco Cloth.1.png File:Thomas L. Sloan.png: at PUF. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC) ? deleted --DannyS712...
Click to read more »reasons given for PUF of File:Helen Gahagan Douglas.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC) RETAIN, per reasons given for PUF of File:Helen Gahagan...
Click to read more »tag this with {{npd}}. Nyttend (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Or {{puf}}. Deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »at PUF TWICE this month? 2013 July 9. This is abusive. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Speedy keep abuse of process, survived PUF just...
Click to read more »talk | history | logs). This is not a simple text logo, but FFD rather than PUF as this might be a "state symbol" which has an exemption in Russian copyright...
Click to read more »2013 (UTC) Trial complete. It looks like people have taken the week off at PUF, no dates were completed during the five days. But see above. Anomie⚔ 11:13...
Click to read more »handles this: see User_talk:Richlevine00#Copyright_concerns and the linked PUF subpage. I am concerned at this juncture that we probably need a WP:CCI....
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this section. Closed as out of scope for PUF. See AnomieBOT's instructions for how to proceed. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 9...
Click to read more »Sfan00IMG to PUF in September 2009 and kept. If Sfan00IMG is so intent on getting it deleted, he should use FFD, as it already has survived PUF. -- 65.94...
Click to read more »(talk) 13:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Update: The uploader has now removed the {{puf}} template and added {{GFDL-self}} to some or all of the files. However,...
Click to read more »(UTC) Y Kept — image is marked as fair use, therefore is out of scope for PUF. However, I have tagged it for deletion as it has no rationale and is not...
Click to read more »ξxplicit 00:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Relisting note: Originally nominated at WP:PUF, moved to proper venue here at FFD. — ξxplicit 00:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Point de Vue, 16 December 1997 Frédéric Bluche, Le bonapartisme, Paris, PUF, 1980 The Valynseele book seems to be the standard history of the Bonapartes...
Click to read more »Why bother with a PUF? The image will be deleted before this PUF finishes, and anyway usefulness/uselessness is not a matter for PUF. Nyttend (talk) 23:55...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) Keep if the file is listed through another process, such as WP:PUF or WP:FFD, then the di-notice is inappropriate, as it wouldn't be a CSD....
Click to read more »trying to add tag for Possible unfree file using the instructions for the 'Puf template'. However my attempts always end up as an invalid template (in red)...
Click to read more »issue. Admin VernoWhitney has tagged image as OTRS incomplete. No longer a PUF issue.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC) File:Siegle's...
Click to read more »Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Did you read last year's PUF discussion? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Link please......
Click to read more »discussion was: Keep, now claimed as fair use and outside the scope of WP:PUF. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC) cartlesdecine.com is quoted...
Click to read more »I've sent the email and added the OTRS tag to the image. Should I take the puf tag off the image? Or wait until everything is squared away with the OTRS...
Click to read more »19 July 2013 (UTC) I was just investigating this one and will replace the PUF with an NPD tag. The license claim is not backed up with a statement on the...
Click to read more »participate in discussion. Please resubmit following the instructions at WP:PUF. TLSuda (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC) The image was not first published...
Click to read more »in image work of all sorts, notably deletion (speedy, pseudo-speedy, WP:PUF, and WP:FFD). I've worked vandalism patrol in the past, so I will block blatant...
Click to read more »Category:Possibly unfree files from 2014 July 11, but there doesn't seem to be any PUF discussion for it. This is a logo and is unlikely the work of the uploader...
Click to read more »guard against {{subst:Citation needed}}. Perhaps that could be done with {{puf}} etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Admin action needed...
Click to read more »review). No further edits should be made to this section. Out of scope of PUF. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC) No evidence that copyright holder...
Click to read more »00:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC) WP:WikiProject Images and Media , WP:NFCR , WP:PUF , WP:FFD , WP:CP ... seems like there's alot there already. I think if a...
Click to read more »1880.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). Procedurally moved here from WP:PUF. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Procedural nomination for declined...
Click to read more »(talk) 16:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Comment. As I mentioned in an earlier WP:PUF nomination of this image, I think that {{PD-textlogo}} applies in this case...
Click to read more »that this is PD, which would be required here for FP. I will be listing the restored local copy at WP:PUF. Jujutacular talk 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »doctrines with esoteric concepts. [Antoine Faivre, "L'ésotérisme", Paris, PUF (« Que sais-je?»), 1992.] In the 17th century this was followed up by the...
Click to read more »WT:AC/N, WT:RFC, WP:CHUU, WP:CHUS, WP:DELREV, WP:WQA, WP:CP, WP:ADCO/RFC, WP:PUF, WP:HD, WP:ITN, WP:VP, WP:VPP, WP:VPT, WP:BN, WP:CJS, WP:BRFA, WP:UW, WP:NAR...
Click to read more »non-free, and fails NFCC #8 by a mile. The gameplay image (also here at PUF might make the cut, but not this. Should we transfer this to FfD? Sven Manguard...
Click to read more »psychiatrie de la femme' appears to be real. It was published in 1999 by PUF, a real publisher, but it is now out of print according to amazon.fr. EdJohnston...
Click to read more »talk | history | logs). Irregardless of the simplicity from the previous PUF, Mondrian died in 1944, so 70+ life is 2014. Unfree until next year. MASEM...
Click to read more »renamed after that), but it seems that the request later disappeared from the PUF page. I'm questioning whether this map really is own work. Stefan2 (talk)...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »a whole lot of activity on your part in files for deletion discussions, PUF discussions etc (most of what I have seen are "delete, per nom" brief !votes)...
Click to read more »If you have located licensing information that suggests an image at WP:PUF may be properly licensed, note it. Make sure that others interested in the...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »removed the SPI notification from User talk:Mariaflores1955 and also the {{puf}} template from a file uploaded by User:Mariaflores1955. Meanwhile, User:Bolekpolivka...
Click to read more »subject of a seperate PUF listing, as it contains graphical elements, it is however not completely 2D. I'd flagged your image as PUF because, It is a 2D...
Click to read more »talk | history | logs). This was a previously listed PUF as it's a mural, uploader removed PUF tag :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)...
Click to read more »deletable at WP:PUF, so it has to go here instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC) If the image is no longer deletable at PUF, have you withdrawn...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »in 2012 and 2013 was Windows 8 article and several pages (articles, AfD, PUF) directly related to it. Of course, an area well outside the WikiProject...
Click to read more »copyright infringements. Images are handled at WP:PUF. If you don't want to open a formal investigation at PUF, you might just want to paste all of this at...
Click to read more »uncropped, is clearly original art, and therefore not PD, hence my kicking it to PUF. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »User_talk:Nenyedi#File:David_T._Abercrombie.jpg. The file was deleted at PUF in 2010 for lack of source information and unclear copyright status: Wikipedia:Possibly...
Click to read more »of the image. Tineye didn't find a match for this, so I am reffering to PUF so that more experienced contributors can comment. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51...
Click to read more »image is tagged PUF the uploader or someone else (like yourself) will see the problem and can infact show it is PD. I then "Withdraw" my PUF tag immediately...
Click to read more »subcategory starter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) WP:PUF has been closed. The categories were created by Hazard-Bot after DumbBOT...
Click to read more »deleted for any reason. FFD and PUF overlap in this respect. I personally prefer to list possibly unfree files at PUF unless there also are other problems...
Click to read more »unambiguous copyright violations, etc.) and closing nominations at FFD and PUF. Being a regular throughout IRC, I am occasionally asked to assist in varied...
Click to read more »getting very troublesome, as you can see from all such similar claims in past PUFs and FdDs where the victim card is played in addition to claiming false statuses...
Click to read more »it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC) WP:PUF is not the correct forum for cases like this, so I have listed the file at...
Click to read more »File:Gen Yahya Khan 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). This was up for PUF at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_February_26#File:Gen_Yahya_Khan_1...
Click to read more »Gparyani (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC) From the talk page of this (PUF) page: Fallcon gaming society is a non profit organization. I am the graphic...
Click to read more »seperator. Crazy stuff like [[ File : Example.png |20px]] works: . '/[\|]?\{\{puf|ic/i' is wrong, that will match anything with "ic". Should be something like...
Click to read more »179 (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Comment - I meant this to go to PUF. Nevertheless, seeing as there's an unorthodox possible solution there, here...
Click to read more »gif (delete | talk | history | logs). no WP:OTRS permission. Going through PUF as uploader removed {{subst:npd}} tag. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:23, 21 February...
Click to read more »- same editor removed the cc-by-3.0, added a FUR, and commented out the PUF. And while he says that the image came from the winery's site, it's not from...
Click to read more »but appeared on a blog in 2007.[1] Heavily used image, so I think that PUF may be better than {{db-f9}}. Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)...
Click to read more »image.jpg is here. For a different image, Stefan2 notes further down on that PUF page, "Unclear copyright status: both tagged as being from India and from...
Click to read more »discussion, file's licensing has been changed to "PD-logo". As the original PUF nominator, I believe this change is sufficient to remove the doubts I had...
Click to read more »11:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I did not mention the bot would ignore CSD/FFD/PUF tagged files and files with templates such as {{ShadowCommons}} because I...
Click to read more »26 May 2010 (UTC) Many Picasso images were previously deleted after this PUF nomination. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Which was three...
Click to read more »00:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Relisting note: Erroneously nominated at WP:PUF. — ξxplicit 00:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Delete. No need for very similar...
Click to read more »There is a later PUF for this file at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 28#File:Coat of Arms of Zengid Dynasty.JPG. Perhaps this PUF should be considered...
Click to read more »29 October 2013 (UTC) When you wrote the same thing about this file on PUF in July, some users wrote that the software is freely licensed. Is that licence...
Click to read more »mentioned a URL on the file information page when uploading it. Taking to PUF for an opinion. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Comment - I declined the PUF because I thought that it is a free file. I recommended FFD, but only meant...
Click to read more »January 2015 (UTC) This is the wrong forum. The discussion should be at WP:PUF, not on this page. This page is for textual copyright violations. At User...
Click to read more »If you click on the image, you will see it is currently under review at PUF, and you are welcome to comment there. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 10 November...
Click to read more »recall correctly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn as PUF per Andy Dingley, Will tag as wrong license..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:34, 24...
Click to read more »shaky. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Comment - Also listed at PUF on April 1, April 17 and May 9. May 9 is still open, but April 1 and April...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reason El-Pabloski :...
Click to read more »File:Scottdavid.jpg, which was deleted as the result of a listing at WP:PUF: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 12#File:Scottdavid.jpg. There's...
Click to read more »(delete | talk | history | logs). This was a speedy F9 - I've changed it to a PUF. Image is from http://english.president.go.kr/president/presidents/profile...
Click to read more »Marcus Qwertyus 02:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Question Have you read the previous PUF discussion? I'm not familiar with the show, so I can't say for sure whether...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »copyright issues at stake here; the issue of FOP addressed in the earlier PUF (and cleared) and the issue of the rights of the author of the image. We...
Click to read more »Comment why are the files untagged for PUF? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC) My fault. PUF is setup for one file at a time (and all...
Click to read more »Adjusting PUF to take all of these files sounds like a good idea. There was also a proposal to merge FFD with PUF. The difference between FFD and PUF is more...
Click to read more »meant to be contentious, deletions at PUF, if they are needed, are relatively uncontroversial. Unlike PROD, PUF is populated by an undated template. The...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reason Alanthom81...
Click to read more »in a country without Freedom of Panorama. This file has been debated at PUF before (in April 2013) and I believe it was closed incorrectly. In my opinion...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this discussion. Wrong forum. Listed at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC) The following discussion is...
Click to read more »However, I can't find any PUF discussion where anyone suggests that this one is in the public domain. I can only find a PUF discussion where a user states...
Click to read more »be made to this section. The result of the discussion was: Umm... Keep. PUF is for images currently tagged as free but which may be non-free. This image...
Click to read more »| talk | history | links | watch | logs) Nominator's rationale: Since WP:PUF is now closed and this category empty, it can probably be removed. Jo-Jo...
Click to read more »talk | history | logs). This is not a simple text logo, but FFD rather than PUF as this might be a "state symbol" which has an exemption in Russian copyright...
Click to read more »source link is provided to accompany licensing. The file was sent to WP:PUF, but since that is now closed, the file should be sent to WP:FFD instead...
Click to read more »SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC) I've listed the other file at PUF. Apart from the copyright issue, I think that the files are out of scope...
Click to read more »Breach.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs). As explained in the previous PUF discussion, this photo is copyrighted in USA as it was taken less than 50...
Click to read more »December 2010 (UTC). Content from subsequent PUF nomination (2011 January 1) consolidated below. (Second PUF nomination was created while this one still...
Click to read more »Most of the image uploaded by this user claim wrong license. This is may be PUF, and no meta data available. I request up loader please upload this image...
Click to read more »should render it compliant. I recommend moving this file to Commons after the PUF process is complete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Seems like...
Click to read more »by US laws, not foreign law (it's a concept that comes up here a lot at PUF), unless we can prove that a photograph was in the public domain prior to...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). User has been uploading a string of PUF images. They are again claiming that this is their own work. Wexcan Talk ...
Click to read more »that PUF and IFD are areas you would like to help with? Please pick one or two open and contested (meaning at least one person has !voted keep) PUF or FFD...
Click to read more »uploader regarding Imdad Ali Imam Ali Kazi's family have also been tag {{puf}} here--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »[Vocea Ta] as a whole." Realized it was listed previously in now-historical PUF venue. George Ho (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC); edited, 08:57, 7 February...
Click to read more »it with {{subst:npd}} on Russian Wikipedia as I couldn't find any kind of PUF process there. User:Georg.Erlich mentions Facebook, so maybe his file comes...
Click to read more »OTRS permission. I meant to put this request at the PUF page, but I must have forgot to select the PUF checkbox in Twinkle --Stefan2 (talk) 11:40, 1 February...
Click to read more »AiselneDrossel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). Originally brought to PUF by User:Lonelydarksky who said this: "A copyrighted image. The description...
Click to read more »477294798967752.110171.477292618967970&type=1&theater . I will replace the "puf" template with {{npd}} shortly. I think we can safely close this discussion...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reason Jayzames...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reason Stawa (talk)...
Click to read more »be more specific? There are many pink boxes; to which are you referring? PUF is for "discussing images that are marked as available under a free license...
Click to read more »File:The Mall Ngamwongwan.jpg and File:City Air Terminal.jpg, was submitted to PUF on 6 March, but was kept due to non-overwhelming evidence of copyright violation...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reason Mustafa1702...
Click to read more »completed fair-use rational and proper licence. I have removed the now redundant puf tag. ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC) The above discussion is...
Click to read more »|non-free logo }}. --B for Bandetta (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC) OK, so PUF no longer applies. Tagged with "no fair use rationale". --Stefan2 (talk)...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »concern was over sourcing. Is this, or is this not, an FBI-created picture. PUF seems like the most appropriate venu to discuss this question. Angus McLellan...
Click to read more »Uncle Leo (talk · contribs) has changed licensed tag from {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} to {{puf}}, then removed the image from House numbering with the edit summary "took...
Click to read more »investigations/Marquis de la Eirron. Even ignoring that he's a banned editor, PUF is for "files that are marked as available under a free license or public...
Click to read more »This is the type of thing that in the past would've been discussed at WP:PUF, but now is discussed here instead. This file was originally uploaded by...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »that follow this one on the PUF list. As I said, some are obviously suspicious, and these images should be brought up for PUF, but next month after the...
Click to read more »history. Please consider converting to a fair-use rationale if closing this PUF as nonfree. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC) That discussion...
Click to read more »as non-free. To answer Arfazph's question, no, you should not remove the PUF tag before the listing is closed (it is considered very bad form), however...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »replacement can be created by a chemist, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1. However, PUF is only for discussing whether the file should be marked as free or unfree...
Click to read more »practical purposes) are to tag images for deletion, either by speedy deletion, PUF or FfD. Deletion is triggered if the image's licensing, sourcing or other...
Click to read more »Commons file. The copyright status is the only thing to be discussed at PUF, and requesting deletion for other reasons should be taken to WP:FFD. — ξxplicit...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »is copyrighted Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2012 March 28 Problem with 'PUF' template. LISTENING TO A SONG Span tags showing on titles Looking for good...
Click to read more »things with unknown copyright status. Moreover, this is not FDD, this is PUF. {{USSR}}-status of this work was possible in 2004. But for both {{PD-Russia}}-retagging...
Click to read more »delete (non-admin closure). ~ RobTalk 14:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Template:Uw-puf-remove (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Given that Wikipedia:Possibly...
Click to read more »recipient, However this appears to have been issued in 1921, so this is FFD not PUF. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC) No idea if this counts as...
Click to read more »uploaded an image in commons after it was deleted following a {{puf}} copyright review (see puf and commons). Lastly, this image dose not contain any metadata...
Click to read more »media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Nominator's rationale: WP:PUF is now closed and this category is empty. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:39, 1 May...
Click to read more »discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC) Template:PUF-npd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) Unused warning from...
Click to read more »code generated from Template:puf, which was added by Twinkle. Does anyone know what changes need to be made to Template:puf to make the date output in the...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reason Xib (talk)...
Click to read more »I'm comfortable with it. If someone here is not, he should put it into PUF or even just FFD. Support We only need to follow the US rules here as far...
Click to read more »time, and other uploads from Tehranwatcher by Sina1979 have been deleted at PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »(UTC) Please check the file summary. I have made changes that address this PUF. Note: As the changed summary shows, the Source is NOT the website, cfcindia...
Click to read more »should be made to this section. The result of the discussion was: keep, PUF is for disputing freely licensed files, not non-free files. WP:FFD is the...
Click to read more »history | logs). Fastily tagged "no source" but I think that it may need a PUF discussion because of the complex situation. The uploader, User:Dakman111...
Click to read more »work either (uploader has had previous images deleted per CSD F9 or here at PUF). 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC) January (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »to delete all of this user's uploads, one will need to mass-nom them to PUF first. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC) File:Otriad2009.jpg (delete...
Click to read more »ownership, where do we stand? Thanks in advance and I an actually using PUF for what it is there for (honest question and discussion of an "I don't know"...
Click to read more »didn't think to correct my opening sentence after I did research on the first PUF discussion. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »13:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Issue resolved. Wrong forum, was deleted via PUF. --—Darkwind (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Shashi Sumeet Productions...
Click to read more »a lot of your images, you might want to plan for a few more to end up at PUF unless you clean up your sourcing and make it as explicit as possible about...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reason Cardena (talk)...
Click to read more »detected and removed as well.) When you nominate a file for CSD, DI, FFD, or PUF, the {{now Commons}} template (if present) is removed from the file page...
Click to read more »WP:PUF is closed, links to it are being removed from templates that direct readers and editors there, possibly reducing the amount of exposure PUF gets...
Click to read more »only for files marked as unfree while PUF only is for files marked as unfree, so it seems that both this page and PUF have become the wrong venue. Maybe...
Click to read more »should be made to this section. The result of the discussion was: Not a PUF issue. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Contains images of unknown...
Click to read more »(UTC) Maybe it would be better to reform PUF into a place where we discuss potentially wrong copyright tags? PUF already handles one case of potentially...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC) reason 88.247.92...
Click to read more »Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 9#File:Eichmann, Adolf.jpg was a WP:PUF discussion that had to do with whether the file was a "free" file and as...
Click to read more »free file according to English Wikipedia standards (and therefore not a PUF candidate) but not necessarily acceptable on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01...
Click to read more »media hosted on this project, making tons of nominations at WP:FFD and WP:PUF as well as file renaming and MTC's. This continued alongside sporadic content...
Click to read more »talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lambaya püf de (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...
Click to read more »Members can view ticket 2013092010017421) so these images can have the {{puf}} template removed from them. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013...
Click to read more »originally uploaded it under. I have the restored that rationale, and removed the PUF tag. I highly doubt that this is a free image, it appears to me to be a publicity...
Click to read more »closed by an involved editor, and it was also closed for an invalid reason. PUF discussions are not closed due to lack of comments but based on the merit...
Click to read more »area. Therefore, I would intent to work mostly in WP:NFCR, WP:FFD, and WP:PUF all of which have fairly major backlogs with only a handful of active admins...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »File:UK Election 1945 Map.png (delete | talk | history | logs). Bringing it to PUF as it was a contested F11. I'm still unable to confirm the original source...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reason Ariellarobison73...
Click to read more »August 2012 (UTC) Relisting note: Originally incorrectly nominated at WP:PUF. — ξxplicit 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Although it was originally listed...
Click to read more »that this discussion must remain open, or can it be closed now, and the puf template removed from the image page? Also, I would appreciate it if you...
Click to read more »Thank you. Storye book 13:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Delete In the previous PUF discussion, someone found a page with text in Russian which Google translated...
Click to read more »email in 2008. This apparently hasn't happened yet. The two weeks that this PUF listing will run should be quite long enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19...
Click to read more »Wikipedia pages without discussion on an XFD. Others exist, including WP:PUF, WP:OFFICE, and WP:BLPPROD, as well as, in this case, WP:F. If you object...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »For copyright issues, consider using WP:PUF instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC) I do use WP:PUF when I need to "ascertain the source and/or...
Click to read more »(UTC) File:Dalecreekpic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). Changed CSD to PUF. There is no license but photo is from 1868 so there i a good chance this...
Click to read more »fairly as opposed to selectively and punitively. That being the case, this PUF should be promptly withdrawn by its OP as being without merit because it...
Click to read more »WP:PUF is not for deletion discussions, it's for discussions to determine the copyright and licensing status of images. So I list things at WP:PUF when...
Click to read more »has informed us to be the photographer. I changed the "No permission" to a PuF so we could have a discussion of the file and other uploads with similar...
Click to read more »categories I just mentioned, list it at PUF. There is absolutely nothing wrong with listing a file you are unsure about at PUF to clear uncertainty. And last but...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »I'm wrong about this one. If I am, please tell me and I will removed is PUF listing immediately. The reason I listed this is that this image appears...
Click to read more »I may also include a nsd or npd flag; I have no plans to worry about a {{puf}} tag at this time. If I approve the image, the bot will unlink all instances...
Click to read more »The uploader is no retagging most of these as non-free and removing the PUF tag. I'd still recommend deletion because they patently fail WP:NFCC#8. If...
Click to read more »files/2013 February 13#File:FrontierRoute.png, one of our many old unclosed WP:PUF discussions. I am unable to close these old discussions because I was either...
Click to read more »switched to using CC Attrib license for this image. I hope this addresses the PUF issue for this image. I am also using the same CC Atrib license for the following...
Click to read more »December 2013 (UTC) The proper procedure is to add {{subst:puf2}}, {{puf}} and {{subst:fdw-puf}} to certain pages. This was done back in December. Any other...
Click to read more »section. The result of the discussion was: Consolidated with existing open PUF case (27 December 2010). (Non-admin action.) TheFeds 05:11, 3 January 2011...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reason Krystalho...
Click to read more »meant with the tag; if the file is non-free here it should have been sent to PUF.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC) *:Sorry...
Click to read more »solutions for massive and/or chronic backlogs on copyright issues (such as at WP:PUF, WP:SCV and WP:CCI), I've opened a discussion at Areas for Reform. Please...
Click to read more »request user to send an email with permission to OTRS, have removed the puf template in favour of an otrs-pending one. Deadstar (talk) 09:22, 9 March...
Click to read more »to this section. The result of the discussion was: procedural close. WP:PUF is not the venue for non-free files. Marked for lacking fair use rationale...
Click to read more »(talk) 12:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC) delete. I incorrectly nominated it as PUF, but my thinking was pretty much the same as the nominators, i.e. I just...
Click to read more »mistaken they seem to thus be copyright violations). I am listing this under PUF however, as this is close to qualifying for {{PD-textlogo}}. Magog the Ogre...
Click to read more »who took the original photo or when. Uploader is at CCI so therefore this puf. MGA73 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »File:Anne Aghion- Photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). Sending the PUF per my comment on WT:OTRS. ticket:2010030310047992 confirms that Indiejilly...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »Your nomination statement sounds much more like an FFD nomination than a PUF nomination. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC) It seems that I...
Click to read more »Nominator is clearly upset that I opposed several of his nominations at PUF and is how hounding me by trying to tag and nominate for deletion every image...
Click to read more »IMG (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn - Erronous nom - Should be PUF.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »it's claimed as own work but it's compilation of web images. Bringing to PUF for second opinon. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC) It's true that...
Click to read more »When they end, they are supposed to be closed using {{subst:puf top}} and {{subst:puf bottom}}. I see that this page tells that the screenshots on that...
Click to read more »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...
Click to read more »different venue. As this is hinging on free/non-free, this should go to PUF. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC) File:WMATA Thin Silver Line...
Click to read more »edits should be made to this section. Your stupid nominator cannot tell WP:PUF from WP:FFD. Apologies for the inconvenience. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54...
Click to read more »(talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC) See User:SchoolcraftT's comment for PUF on the file Backway Routes.ogg for an explanation of where this file came...
Click to read more »to this section. The result of the discussion was: Delete; the purpose of PUF is to determine the copyright status of a given file. If the copyright status...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »copyvio, serial copyvio offender, see current parallel discussion at WP:PUF#Photos from User:Cristian Adrian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »PUF. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC) This illustration is not a derivative work the reasons for which are fully explained in the PUF....
Click to read more »6#File:Haugsetting.jpg "On reflection" statement by Angus McLellan the original PUF closer.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk|contribs) 14:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »copyright status is also disputed, as noted by the file's previous listing at PUF, though that is not the reason I am listing it here. The file is unencyclopedic...
Click to read more »conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his...
Click to read more »Commons:COM:VPC before uploading to Commons, alternatively you could send it to WP:PUF. If that image was deleted it wouldn't change the opinion I gave above. January...
Click to read more »this section. The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn; relisted at WP:PUF. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 07:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC) File:Juniper Tar 2010.jpg (delete...
Click to read more »PTN PTO PTP PTQ PTR PTS PTT PTU PTV PTW PTX PTY PTZ PUA PUB PUC PUD PUE PUF PUG PUH PUI PUJ PUK PUL PUM PUN PUO PUP PUQ PUR PUS PUT PUU PUV PUW PUX PUY...
Click to read more »graveyard).TCO (reviews needed) 16:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Are you referring to WP:PUF? If so, it's not a graveyard at all. --B (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)...
Click to read more »deleted. File:RamahshirtS.jpg is much more borderline; I would go the FfD/PUF route for that. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC) So are we agreed...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »2011. The "dispute" was regarding the name of the article and also a bogus "PUF" allegation by Jayantanth, but for apparently no reason at all, he has been...
Click to read more »(UTC) Renamed. The file is tagged as non-free, so it isn't deletable at WP:PUF. If you feel that it should be deleted, I assume that the nomination should...
Click to read more »tagged it with {{nld}}; accordingly, it will likely be deleted before this PUF is done. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »August 2011 (UTC) File has formally correct non-free tagging now, so this PUF issue is moot. However, I'm going to challenge its use under WP:NFCC#8, in...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »you have any doubts please don't upload to the Commons, and send to FfD or PUF. Otherwise, you are creating a mess which Commons admins will have to mop...
Click to read more »Thank you. Storye book 13:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Delete In the previous PUF discussion, someone found a page with text in Russian which Google translated...
Click to read more »don't know the proper derivative license. Once I know that, I'll close the PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Keep per X!. — Jeff...
Click to read more »Toshio Yamaguchi 19:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC) I think that WP:PUF would be the best venue for this. PUF is already used to determine the copyright status of "free"...
Click to read more »admins who are willing to make deletions or close discussions at WP:FFD, WP:PUF and WP:NFCR, and only 2-3 who delete CSD DI files. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:38...
Click to read more »brought it to FfD for discussion. I I am confused as to why this was placed in PUF previously. I must have hit the wrong button when tagging it. Mea culpa....
Click to read more »--Rockfang (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC) That's a big one. I hate working PUF. I covered July 3-7. Anything that wasn't deleted is probably ok, though...
Click to read more »deletion rather than NFC? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC) WP:PUF is for files which may be unfree, although the outcome, should a file be...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reason Nikiallie...
Click to read more »Convorbiri literare, September 2003 Richard Pipes, "La revolution russe", PUF, 1993 Richard Pipes, "Russian under the bolchevik regime", Knopf, 1993 Anton...
Click to read more »into something slightly more readable and explainable: I found myself on PUF images. After commenting on what I went there for, I decided to give the...
Click to read more »furthermore in closing that PUF discussion I noticed that Folkprofessor first tried not just to nominate the file at PUF but to remove the fair-use information...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)...
Click to read more »person is dead, etc. and so it doesn't take the same time. Just like at PUF where many of the files could just be retagged as copyrighted and given a...
Click to read more »course of action? It seems like an unnecessary burden to take it through WP:PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Yes i agree just am 'em...
Click to read more »{{subst:npd}} by User:Sreejithk2000 but I feel that it would be better to take it to PUF instead. User:Túrelio added a link to a page where it says that the copyright...
Click to read more »can see at Ticket:2008101710030661). You should add your comments to the PUF listing, which is linked at your talk page, as that listing will run its...
Click to read more »page. LukeSurl t c 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC) You seem to have created a PUF discussion at about the same time as I tagged this with {{db-f9}} citing...
Click to read more »July 2014 (UTC) Yes. I was veering towards marking it for commons. Ideally PUF should really be 'Image Status review' like commons DR's are. Sfan00 IMG...
Click to read more »Dmartinaus (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I would appreciate your removing the puf|log tag at this time. Copyright has been registered and properly applied...
Click to read more »complicated to explain why, but I can't do the tagging specified at the top of WP:PUF. Could someone do it for me? 2001:18E8:2:1020:81D0:BA98:6347:210A (talk)...
Click to read more »which is to be treated as an unfree file is listed as a free file, then PUF is the right forum for having this corrected. Also note that the statement...
Click to read more »mere use of expletives doesn't require sanctioning of editors. Removing {{puf}} tags, though, as you did, may indeed call for a response. Your characterization...
Click to read more »However, it still seems to be a copyvio. Just take a look at yesterday's PUF discussions where two different copies of the same image are listed. In those...
Click to read more »(UTC) WP:NFCR#File:Lipstick-catepillar.jpg Y This one was re-listed at WP:PUF on April 15. -- Dianna (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC) WP:NFCR#File:Nude_...
Click to read more »Areas where we are currently chronically short of admins include WP:SPI, WP:PUF, WP:FFD, WP:NFCR, WP:RFPP (on weekends), and image deletions of all kinds...
Click to read more »(talk) 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC) This was already explained to you at the PUF discussion and by User:ScottyBerg. I recommended that you send an email to...
Click to read more »discussion. Just a notice that there is an immense 3 month backlog over at WP:PUF. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 07:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Now only two and...
Click to read more »therefore like to suggest that in time CSD is deprecated in favour of a PUF system, so that there is an appropriate disscussion process for ANY media...
Click to read more »Can probably be deleted as F9 since the image appears here but I'm trying PUF since my previous "no licence" tag was removed. Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 20...
Click to read more »(UTC) Normally, such things (questioning the freeness of an image) go on WP:PUF but this isn't a stringently enforced policy, I believe.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk...
Click to read more »(who in turn was indeffed as a sock), with a bunch of images on today's PUF. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Math Champion (talk+ · tag ·...
Click to read more »notice, the notice seems to imply to include WP:FFD and the now-axed WP:PUF, as these are deletion discussion areas. This becomes tricky for requesting...
Click to read more »File:TanzanianCheetah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). Previously listed at PUF here. The Flickr source shows "all rights reserved" and the image unfortunately...
Click to read more »(Non-admin disclaimer) If the issue is already being discussed via the WP:PUF process, why are you bringing it here too? – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 4 June...
Click to read more »WT:AC/N, WT:RFC, WP:CHUU, WP:CHUS, WP:DELREV, WP:WQA, WP:CP, WP:ADCO/RFC, WP:PUF, WP:HD, WP:ITN, WP:VP, WP:VPP, WP:VPT, WP:BN, WP:CJS, WP:BRFA, WP:UW, WP:NAR...
Click to read more »the opinion of uninvolved third parties. And, if I am not mistaken, the {{puf}} is an appropriate forum for that. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:09, 11 May...
Click to read more »an ANI post? As Ryan has offered a reasonable explanation, I suggest the PUF threads be closed and this thread be marked archived. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/...
Click to read more »File:Strategic Barnstar.JPG. --Masamage ♫ 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC) WP:PUF has a bit of a backlog... most recent discussions have been closed, but a...
Click to read more »there are copyvio images, tag them for speedy as such (or nominate for WP:PUF or a Commons DR if it's not blatant). Make a note of those images. As to...
Click to read more »Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons (and the "same name" subcat) WP:PUF could also use some attention. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:01, 22 May...
Click to read more »page, replacing the improper information there previously. As such, this PUF has been closed. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »involves the same issue (publication of pre-1923 images) that arose in a PUF discussion recently that I contributed to, as you know. ScottyBerg (talk)...
Click to read more »to see what they think about granting permission. Lastly, do one mass FfD/PUF for the rest. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC) There are at least...
Click to read more »can. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC) I've closed these PUFs. Proof has been provided on Flickr that the two accounts are operated by...
Click to read more »2015 (UTC) This was flagged ( and you've subsequently updated it so this PUF is moot), because the packaging design contained non trival elements (namely...
Click to read more »—fetch·comms 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Due to a recent discussion on WP:PUF, I've come across the {{trainweb}} template. It's flown under the radar for...
Click to read more »is for discussions regarding that template itself, not for discussing a PUF issue of a certain image that is not even on Commons. I think we are in the...
Click to read more »done just that. FfD has been perpetually backlogged since the closing of PUF. Really doesn't need a new AN notice every few weeks telling people that...
Click to read more »October 2013 (UTC) And if anyone wants to do anything even more boring, WP:PUF is backlogged even worse. Legoktm (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Don't...
Click to read more »(User:N5iln) (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I already tossed it to PUF for discussion and with that I'm done with the file. Eeekster (talk) 01:11...
Click to read more »use company logo? --InfantGorilla (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC) From WP:PUF "Files that are tagged with a non-free template should not be listed here...
Click to read more »listed as a copyvio, but I'm not sure that I agree, so I'm changing it to PUF. The thing is that it is an Iraqi web site, and Iraq doesn't have copyright...
Click to read more »Barolo in Cellar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). I'm taking this to PUF instead of using DI tags because I find the tagging so confusing and I feel...
Click to read more »use rationale}} template for software under the GPL license. The way WP:PUF seems to work is files are assumed to be "bad" if someone lists one here...
Click to read more »I'm unsure if this is the right place. I found it necessary to initiate a Puf on an image file (this is not the issue). In the process, I added the required...
Click to read more »of editors seems to think that tagging with "no source" or nominating for PUF is a serious offence. Bulwersator (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC) First...
Click to read more »of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Image listed at PUF Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#June 12. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 12 June...
Click to read more »01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Oops. Clearly I should've taken this one to PUF instead of here. Perhaps I'll just retag it as non-free and replace it into...
Click to read more »What should be done with this category? No templates appear to be populating it anymore, so it would qualify for deletion under CSD G8. But DumbBOT keeps...
Click to read more »he's the only one who is right. I've nominated many of his uploads here at PUF and at Commons DR. Even with the Commons block and possible topic ban here...
Click to read more »StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Suggest that a thread at WP:PUF be opened to discuss the image issues, to separate out if any admin action...
Click to read more »now. :/ File:Frank Buckles at 16.jpg. I believe we need to take this to PUF. There's no evidencfe that it's a military file; on the contrary, the military...
Click to read more »WP:FFD, stretching back to mid April. Could admin(s) deal with these? Also WP:PUF has a backlog but nowhere as dense. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 15:26,...
Click to read more »being too promotional. All other uploads by the user have been nominated at PUF for being of dubious copyright status, so I wouldn't be surprised if this...
Click to read more »re-uploading these images. File:Selena12.jpg was deleted once following a PUF discussion in June (see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010 June 22#File:Selena12...
Click to read more »take note of the recent posts at WP:AN about extensive backlogs at AFD, PUF, FFD, NFCR, SPI, etc. etc. Tagging images for deletion that actually only...
Click to read more »copyright violations, and his files he's uploaded are all currently marked as PUF. Seems he just doesn't understand how to follow Wiki rules. Caffeyw (talk)...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »ptn pto ptp ptq ptr pts ptt ptu ptv ptw ptx pty ptz pua pub puc pud pue puf pug puh pui puj puk pul pum pun puo pup puq pur pus put puu puv puw pux puy...
Click to read more »Hi. At the moment, the edittop gadget adds the edit link at the end of the top header. I would like to propose this to be changed to look like the edittop...
Click to read more »Youreallycan 16:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to nominate the images at WP:PUF yet? Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC) No one is required to...
Click to read more »Adoil Descended (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Also possibly useful: WP:PUF. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion...
Click to read more »for speedy. Her other two uploads, which are less blatant, I've sent to PUF. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Well, she hasn't edited...
Click to read more »license at Flickr initially was PD Mark 1.0 - when I questioned this at WP:PUF, the license at Flickr was changed to {{cc-by-2.0}} and Indiahawk simultaneously...
Click to read more »dispute the uploader's authorship claim, then you should take the file to WP:PUF instead. I found all of the pictures on other websites, so I tagged the whole...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »merge for reasons like this, but all the image discussion venues (NFCR, PUF, etc.) have been merged to (formally) Files for Deletion, now named Files...
Click to read more »the discussion was: closed as moot. FFD has a shorter waiting period than PUF, and as such, these files were deleted under that process, where it was determined...
Click to read more »insufficient. I agree that the templates should be there, but I would have used WP:PUF if templates are removed too many times. In a deletion discussion, it is...
Click to read more »for deletion", but was changed to "Files for discussion" after NFCR and WP:PUF were incorporated into it. The file's non-free use in the Bhutan team's article...
Click to read more »as and as often as you/they like. You’ll find edits for MCQ, FFD, the old PUF and NFCR as well as other pages where images tend to be discussed. You’ll...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »there are too few admins who work with file issues. It's the same with WP:PUF and WP:FFD: there are plenty of discussions which are trivial to close but...
Click to read more »the uploader doesn't own the right to them. This should probably be under PUF, but w/e. These images appear to be higher resolution than those used on...
Click to read more »uploader originally stated this as a fair use claim. Going by comments here on PUF by Graeme Bartlett what we are dealing with is a serial license changer....
Click to read more »"Files for discussion" from "Files for deletion". (Just for reference, WP:PUF was also merged into FFD around the same time.) There is also {{di-disputed...
Click to read more »as its creator, am free to license it any way I choose to. As for this PUF listing, again with respect it is exactly this kind of niggling pettifoggery...
Click to read more »copyrightable, they intend to release it into PD. Going here instead of PUF because there are more than a few problems. Protonk (talk) 06:55, 31 August...
Click to read more »and his assumed sockpuppet zoo. Another user will follow on the tomorow PUF listing. --Martin H. (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »discussion at hand. I'm disappointed. I try my best to keep backlogs at CSD/FfD/PuF low, spend hours working on it, and only recognition I receive for my efforts...
Click to read more »turned up on a search there. Kelly hi! 10:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Delete The PUF discussions from late October last year (the one SpacemanSpiff linked to...
Click to read more »uploaded non-free screenshots as alleged own work (see File:R2.jpg, deleted at PUF, File:Mtennis2admDONE.jpg, speedied). File was restored by a fellow admin...
Click to read more »contribs | uploads | upload log). derived from deleted image (listed at PUF), unlikely to be freely licensed FASTILY 08:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »(talk) 23:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC) The templates to use are: {{Puf top}} and {{Puf bottom}}. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 23:53, 19 December...
Click to read more »| logs). Was tagged for deletion, but uploder added possible web source, PUF as I'm not sure it's uploaders 'self' work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk)...
Click to read more »if anyone disagrees, feel free to nominate at WP:PUF. However, if this image is nominated at PUF, then the SVG version at Commons will need to be nominated...
Click to read more »If you have located licensing information that suggests an image at WP:PUF may be properly licensed, note it. Make sure that others interested in the...
Click to read more »y/maps/alexbaedeker1914.jpg (8, 9, 1, 1) bp2.blogger.com/_E4LKrnHS9KA/R8vPufRQ86I/AAAAAAAAA40/aX5xt3-Whjg/s1600-h/Alejandria-ancient_.jpg (8, 472, 1,...
Click to read more »delete images like this one presumptively without going through the full PUF process. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC) The above discussion...
Click to read more »February 2010 (UTC) Hey all. I recently submitted a possibly unfree file (PUF) for review. You can find it at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_Jan...
Click to read more »photos of themselves, right? --B (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Added to PUF. — Bility (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »discussion was: Wrong Forum; this is an issue that belongs at WP:FFD, not WP:PUF, which is intended to resolve the copyright status of a file-FASTILY (TALK)...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reason Ed morrison...
Click to read more »9 June 2013 (UTC) Query Tim, what works written by Soto are published by PUF, Routledge, and Lit Verlag? Could you provide specifics? Thanks.— Preceding...
Click to read more »Wikipedia are provided in detail. So I request you to remove this file from PUF Listings. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.vivek0305 (talk...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reason Mpress1...
Click to read more »Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) This seems like a case for WP:PUF to me. I agree that the copyright status is an issue, though. The sculptor...
Click to read more »blacklist, so I had to add a space in the middle of it for the purpose of this PUF nomination. You will need to remove the space in order to view the page....
Click to read more »(UTC) Note: This is made in stone so it may be different from the other PUF-files listed here. --MGA73 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC) I made a notice...
Click to read more »{{delnote-commons}} , {{delnote-afd}} , {{delnote-csd}} , {{delnote-prod}} , {{delnote-puf}} , {{delnote-nfcr}} , {{delnote-ffd}} . {{delnote-tfd}} , {{delnote-mfd}}...
Click to read more »kept for fair use regardless, so it probably should have been listed at WP:PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The above discussion is...
Click to read more »(UTC) This can be closed, sorry didn't understand the difference between PUF and Non-Free content review. It's slightly confusing which is supposed to...
Click to read more »concern: BMW is not a German court. I assume the IP does not know about PUF, so I am vouching here even though I think the IP doesn't understand what...
Click to read more »that it is still in the beginning stages and to not let it interfere with PUF. I believe if the images are proven to be truly from the uploader, then they...
Click to read more »preventing the incorrect nomination of many free files, valid under PD-CAGov, for PUF or other deletions. Darkest Tree Talk 16:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »without a license or source posted before this date would have to go via PUF or FFD to ensure an 'appropriate' discussion took place. Images may of course...
Click to read more »so I just tagged with COI rather than PROD for now), should I tag with {{puf}}? The logo he uploaded is quite high resolution, so I think that it needs...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »suggestions: Don't generate if an image is less than a month old (to allow for CSD, PUF process etc coding... Theopolisme (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Done with...
Click to read more »Commons using a descriptive filename. The second file will be relisted at PUF because a license for it was never explicitly defined (is it the same license...
Click to read more »(However, the blacklisting of PUF daily categories should probably be delayed for a moment until Twinkle is updated to have PUF removed. (Adding This, that...
Click to read more »claimed under a free license, this sort of issue should be brought up at WP:PUF, for future reference. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Image deleted...
Click to read more »point of sending them to FFD? Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC) PUF is for changing free tags into non-free tags while FFD is for changing non-free...
Click to read more »the Ogre (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Strike that, this is FFD, not PUF. Delete as orphaned and unnecessary, and a possible copyvio via npd, without...
Click to read more »WP:PUF were incorporated into FFD a few years back, the "D" was changed to "discussion" because now there were more possibilities since NFCR and PUF didn't...
Click to read more »removing deletion tags several times. Thus, I am additionally reporting it to PUF so that this file isn't forgotten if the tags are deleted again. This file...
Click to read more »dispute the previous PUF closure, consider starting a new PUF discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Reading that PUF, I believe that was...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC) the source is probably...
Click to read more »files after they've been resized comes to mind. I'd also close FfDs and PUFs, which are areas that I'm very familiar with, monitor requests for the file...
Click to read more »or gives him the full copyright. The same applies to the other uploads, a PUF for File:Parroquia de San Francisco de Asis en Tepatitlan.jpg should follow...
Click to read more »WT:FFD, WT:PUF, WP:MCQ, or anything else that I can think of. Another user whom I know has had several of his photos deleted at FFD and PUF because they...
Click to read more »2009 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} When WP:PUI was renamed to WP:PUF a large number of the subpages (logs of discussions) weren't moved to their...
Click to read more »uploader changed the licence to fair use when the image was brought up at WP:PUF. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Comment This is a real photo...
Click to read more »File:Lady of guadalupe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs). Transferred to PUF after originally being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February...
Click to read more »confidence either. --Avenue (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Now listed at WP:PUF. --Avenue (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Dang, I was kinda half-expecting...
Click to read more »is currently a discussion going on for shortening the length of time for PUF from 14 to 7 days. It is at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files#Proposal...
Click to read more »21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Comment - This should have been taken to WP:PUF instead of being brought here.--Rockfang (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC) File:File name.ext...
Click to read more »undermanned. We need to find a way to attract more admins to help at WP:PUF, while admins and experienced contributors alike could help reduce the chronic...
Click to read more »FFD instead? Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC) I brought this to PUF rather than FFD as I'm not blanket of deletion, in fact I would rather see...
Click to read more »2010 (UTC) I recently noted some XFD log templates, like {{Ffd log}}, {{Puf log}} or {{Log chrono}} or {{Tfd log}}, and since all logs pretty much use...
Click to read more »was: : Non-admin close - Now marked as 'non-free' so no need to run a full PUF on it? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC) File:GranvilleasSD.jpg...
Click to read more »to this section. The result of the discussion was: keep for purposes of PUF, however, one should take care to assess whether this image meets all of...
Click to read more »File:Lokomotiva-1.jpg (the last of Bloncaric10040 images) is also tagged PUF by another user for similar reason.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 16:46, 16...
Click to read more »block was added in good faith, but subsqeunt checks indicate a previous FFD/PUF discussion concerning this uploader which led to the deletion of a number...
Click to read more »be required here for FP. I will be listing the restored local copy at WP:PUF. Jujutacular talk 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Voting period is over. Please...
Click to read more »are missing at 'action=edit', so I've had to create lots of sections at PUF and FFD manually, which is annoying. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2015...
Click to read more »oppose over such a seemingly small item? If you wish, take the image to PUF or FFD, but I'm not sure why that affects the article as a whole, as I feel...
Click to read more »perhaps using a bot and a template that functions like Anomiebot on WP:PUF. But I don't see how more efficient shuttling is going to help with unanswered...
Click to read more »there, and I think the potential for making a mistake is pretty high. WP:PUF always seems to have a backlog, and that's something I have a bit of experience...
Click to read more »blocked. WP:CCI seems to mostly be based on infringing text, and WP:FFD and WP:PUF seem to mostly be based upon single files. There is no mass deletion process...
Click to read more »There does not seem to be an accurate tag for this situation. The current PUF tag says "If the only problem with this file is that a claimed release into...
Click to read more »use criterion. Frank | talk 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Deleted. PUF is for ambiguous situations; this was so clear that it qualified for speedy...
Click to read more »Mitchell with the rationale "Fails NFCC criteria 3, 8 and 9". Moving to here as PUF is the wrong venue. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) The...
Click to read more »French Cinquième République (Maurice Duverger, Le système politique français, PUF, 1970). See fr:Régime semi-présidentiel. Contact Basemetal here 15:55, 20...
Click to read more »bad idea to rename a file while a discussion is ongoing. {{fdw}}, {{fdw-puf}}, {{non-free content review}}: link to discussion goes to the wrong section...
Click to read more »locally by new users get deleted for copyvio-related reasons (F3, F4, F9, PUF). It is far easier to monitor uploads by new users and filter out the bad...
Click to read more »(UTC) Pinging @Explicit: and @TLSuda: as the most active admins in the FFD/PUF area both of which need a bit of attention.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions)...
Click to read more »Hi all! I just wanted to alert you to a discussion (link) we're having at PUF regarding Florida Sunshine Laws, and whether that means that items created...
Click to read more »file page onto the talk pages. Cloudbound (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC) PUF has been closed. Please make your nominations at FFD. BethNaught (talk) 21:52...
Click to read more »2013 (UTC) I've seen several times that files come up for deletion at WP:PUF or WP:FFD this year where the entire deletion rationale is that the file...
Click to read more »WilliamTheaker (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). To revert the result of a PUF. Mexican political parties' logos have been discussed at Commons, here, and...
Click to read more »rendering correctly. As far as I can tell I followed the instructions on WP:PUF, so I'm a little confused. Could someone fix the pages or tell me how to...
Click to read more »images as copyvios if they're claimed as fair use; it's just like at WP:PUF, where claimed fair use images are not discussed. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 12...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Comment User:SitDownOnIt today removed the PUF template with the edit summary "That image, is mine! I took that myself!...
Click to read more »I'm comfortable with it. If someone here is not, he should put it into PUF or even just FFD. Support We only need to follow the US rules here as far...
Click to read more »htm}}. I'm removing this due to the {{OTRS pending}}, but am leaving this PUF request open in case anyone wants to discuss something more. --Stefan2 (talk)...
Click to read more »add {{logo fur}}. -- Jheald (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC) I put it on PUF to gauge discussion on whether this would be PD or not. ViperSnake151 Talk ...
Click to read more »been identified as public domain and salvageable. I have started a broader PUF discussion for all his contributions. By the way, I suspect the user has...
Click to read more »information is. That's hardly reasonable grounds for listing something here at PUF. If you want to pursue this further, I think the burden is on you, not the...
Click to read more »domain, but it would easily meet {{PD-text}}, so I can't really list at PUF. Still, this image is unencyclopedic due to it's low quality, and has no...
Click to read more »HS has done everything by the book is laughable (see below for more) WP:PUF would have been a more viable forum in which to discuss this, but HS largely...
Click to read more »subject to WP:NFCC. If there's a problem with the file's license (e.g WP:PUF) than that's something that can be discussed; this file's licensing seems...
Click to read more »occasional basis, I would find myself patrolling WP:RPP, WP:AIV WP:RfD and WP:PUF, as I've been around those blocks quite a few times. 2. What are your best...
Click to read more »modification; no problems with the current version of the image. Nyttend (talk)! PUF no longer needed I replaced writing icon with File:Notepad icon.svg, which...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »Cloudbound (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Comment. I have listed this file at WP:PUF. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:51...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reason Evpope (talk)...
Click to read more »can't find the other file anywhere, but it is obvious from this and other PUF discussions involving the uploader that the uploader is lying about the authorship...
Click to read more »after coal! coal! And bloweth their bellows till their brain bursteth. Huf! puf! says the one; haf! paf! says the other; They spitten and they sprawlen and...
Click to read more »how to manually list an FfD, could someone list File:Smalling v2.jpg at PUF? It's already tagged, but Twinkle seems to want to fight me, so it hasn't...
Click to read more »should be made to this section. The result of the discussion was: Moved to PUF (see here). Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:14, 10 February 2014...
Click to read more »PD-ineligible). MGA73 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC) It should have been on PUF but I hope it will be ok to have the discussion here. --MGA73 (talk) 09:21...
Click to read more »(without raising PUF) that would be even better! --Haruth (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Such files should really go directly to WP:PUF. The 14 days that...
Click to read more »dubious own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Please use WP:PUF for cases of dubious own works. Now tagged with {{db-f9}}, so this should...
Click to read more »(talk) 05:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Since it's been a number of years since that PUF discussion took place, it's possible that things have change; however, thanks...
Click to read more »history | logs). Doubt self-made claim, probably from here. See this other PUF nomination aswell. Acather96 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »contribs | uploads). Originally uploaded via {{cc-by-3.0}} and it was sent to Puf. However the uploader removed the tag and changed it to fair use. As such...
Click to read more »and is unlikely to anytime soon. Usefulness of files is not an issue of PUF; that needs to be determined at WP:FfD.-FASTILY (TALK) 00:15, 28 December...
Click to read more »further edits should be made to this section. Fair use, out of scope of PUF. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Contains multiple unfree logos...
Click to read more »free/non-free discussion (and probably should have been brought up at WP:PUF instead of here), it seems most prudent to err on the side of caution and...
Click to read more »seems to be in order. Nominator is kindly advised to submit such cases to WP:PUF. Fleet Command (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC) The above discussion is...
Click to read more »(UTC) Blast! Sorry, I usually try to do a better job of watchlisting those PUF subpages when I post stuff, for just this reason. Anyway, I believe the original...
Click to read more »files/2010 March 29#File:Triforium.jpeg, when this image was listed here at PUF for the same reason. It was kept then, because people felt that it could...
Click to read more »--Stefan2 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC) @Stefan2 and Flagcopier: Why is PUF treated as a deletion page? This is not a deletion. It's a determination...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »low quality and low information value, therefore listing it at FFD and not PUF. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »of the 2004 series. Either have a word with the uploaded or list it at WP:PUF for review. NtheP (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC) The map is an extract...
Click to read more »at any point. If someone believes the image to be unfree, please use WP:PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC) File:SS Columbia at...
Click to read more »image is not public domain. It may have been wise to take this file to WP:PUF first.--Rockfang (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) The above discussion is...
Click to read more »images both here and on Commons. In his own words, "both of which (FFD / PUF) need a bit of attention" and again, in his own words, "Wikipedia:Files for...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »however otherwise it is a fairly clear-cut violation, so I would list at WP:PUF, to allow others to also take a look into it and double-check the actions...
Click to read more »du français branché, Seuil, 1986. Le Café-Théâtre, Que sais-je n° 2260, PUF, 1985. Amin Dada ou les sombres exploits d’un sergent de l’armée britannique...
Click to read more »copyright. Additionally a "Near-duplicate" file was deleted here as a {{puf}}. I don't know how he came to this conclusion, but Angus McLellan stated...
Click to read more »company doesn't have an article), then I think that {{db-f9}} is better. PUF may be OK if the logo has a chance of passing WP:NFCC (which is often the...
Click to read more »corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:PUF or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC) File:File name...
Click to read more »Gamal (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Note: The primary purpose of this PUF is to determine whether it can be considered free content, rather than whether...
Click to read more »Magnus Manske (notify | contribs | uploads). This file recently survived a PUF discussion, where it was determined that this image was definitely free....
Click to read more »(UTC) It used to be files for deletion but was changed when WP:NFCR and WP:PUF were merged into this page. Nthep (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC) This...
Click to read more »description page), it is not the same exact photo. However, it is still a PUF. Logan Talk Contributions 00:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC) The above discussion is...
Click to read more »the OTRS tags based on the evidence I used to sort them above, since this PUF comes up for review tomorrow. As we've established, this is just a presumption...
Click to read more »keep on the grounds that this image is not deletable through this venue; PUF is to examine files licensed under a free license, but have disputed source...
Click to read more »Bulwersator (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Comment this already survived PUF this year -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »Quadell (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Delete, but this is more a case for WP:PUF than here. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Delete Mistagged and not...
Click to read more »copyright violation, i.e., the onus is not on the uploader. That's why we have PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC) What about tagging...
Click to read more »statement at the the bottom. Only one image is tagged with this and it is at PUF right now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Delete....
Click to read more »new version, and then handle the old ones as a single entity. Possibly a PUF or NPD if you're inclined, or just leaving it alone if you're not. Magog...
Click to read more »providing incorrect copyright information, both on file information pages and in PUF discussions, so we should assume that the other file uploads also are unfree...
Click to read more »image could be taken or obtained. This was previously discussed in 2013 at PUF and kept, but nobody seems to have raised the possibility of contacting the...
Click to read more »information, it is typically better to list both files together in a section at PUF/FFD instead of tagging one for deletion per WP:F1 so that it more easily...
Click to read more »If you are right about that you do not need to worry because then this Puf will be closed as a "keep". --MGA73 (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC) I know...
Click to read more »14:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC) This seems more like a case for OTRS than for PUF. Does that ticket verify the copyright status?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions)...
Click to read more »