Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 31
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] March 31
[edit] Image:Lanlan.jpg
- Personal photo. Unused. Same image as Image:Long.jpg, a bit cropped. Appears that this user is trying to use Wikipedia as a free webhost Hbdragon88 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lanlanlan.JPG
- Really, really low-quality (can't even tell what is is), unencyclopedic as a result, not useful at all Hbdragon88 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Schooner mallory todd.jpg
- - uploaded by Rorylysaght (notify | contribs).
- appears to have actually come from www.sailseattle.com; only submission by user;unnecessary addition to gallery on schooner — Mangoe 00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tetra_pak_tetra_brik.jpg
- No source, uploaded in May 2005, so I bring it to IfD as opposed to speedying it. Iamunknown 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Grabski2006.jpg
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 05:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Gracie_mcgrady.JPG
[edit] Image:Grad_Family.jpg
- - uploaded by Stealth163 (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:GradDD_080.jpg
[edit] Image:GradandVaca046.jpg
[edit] Image:Grade6trip.jpg
[edit] Image:EngadineRafting.jpg
[edit] Image:Graffiti.JPG
- - uploaded by Steviebengiefan (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Graffiti3.JPG
- - uploaded by Steviebengiefan (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_1.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_10.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_11.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_12.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_13.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_14.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_15.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_2.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_3.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_4.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_5.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_6.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_7.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_8.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grafitti_9.jpg
- - uploaded by Drummerdeej (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Graham_Jones,_director_of_'Fudge_44'.jpg
- - uploaded by Ericatufft7 (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Grahambarker.jpg
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 05:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ashley_Massaro_Playboy_April_2007.jpg
- - uploaded by JohnDoe0007 (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary Playboy cover. It's used on an wrestler bio to mention that she was feature in one of the magazine issues, but the cover image itself doesn't seem to be relevant. Abu badali (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Related discussion about this cover can be is taking place (at the time of this nomination) on Talk:Ashley Massaro#Playboy Cover and User talk:Abu badali#Your copyright paranoia. They may be or may not be of interest for this ifd. --Abu badali (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Completely unnecessary nomination. The page for the image explains the rational and there is no reason for it to be deleted from the space or the article. --JohnDoe0007 07:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the "fair use rationale" explains why do we need to use this image. It says: "Image represents an incredibly important event in the person's life" and "Issue is mentioned in the text.". Even if we manage to properly source (and un-pov) "incredibly important event", we don't need to show the magazine cover image just because the magazine cover issue is "incredibly important". The image should be used only if it contains notable information that can't be conveyed with text. Information like and "London Hilton was featured in Playboy August 2007 cover" can be conveyed with text only. --Abu badali (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep In that case almost anything could be conveyed in text and no images would be necessary. The magazine cover says can be included for commentary on the ssue in questions which it is, nice try. Trevor GH5 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. See Image:OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.png or Image:As03-martha_updat.jpg for examples of magazine cover images (and not magazine "issues") that are noteworthy enough to deserve commentary. "nice try" - that was completely unnecessary. --Abu badali (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep In that case almost anything could be conveyed in text and no images would be necessary. The magazine cover says can be included for commentary on the ssue in questions which it is, nice try. Trevor GH5 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the "fair use rationale" explains why do we need to use this image. It says: "Image represents an incredibly important event in the person's life" and "Issue is mentioned in the text.". Even if we manage to properly source (and un-pov) "incredibly important event", we don't need to show the magazine cover image just because the magazine cover issue is "incredibly important". The image should be used only if it contains notable information that can't be conveyed with text. Information like and "London Hilton was featured in Playboy August 2007 cover" can be conveyed with text only. --Abu badali (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Completely unnecessary nomination. The page for the image explains the rational and there is no reason for it to be deleted from the space or the article. --JohnDoe0007 07:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Related discussion about this cover can be is taking place (at the time of this nomination) on Talk:Ashley Massaro#Playboy Cover and User talk:Abu badali#Your copyright paranoia. They may be or may not be of interest for this ifd. --Abu badali (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This guy's rampant copyright paranoia is a scourge on Wikipedia. The magazine cover template says it may be used: "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,
- with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above," If he wants to try and re-write that template let him do that instead of putting his OR views on things. Trevor GH5 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please, stay cool. Not everything in your above comment is welcome in this discussion. Please understand that the fair use template's texts are descriptive, and not prescriptive. We should take in account our policy and the recent foundation resolution of unfree image usage. I believe magazine covers as this one fail at least item #1 of our policy in that they are been used to convey as little information as "Model 'Ms X' was feature in the September issue of Magazine MMM", which can be conveyed with (free) text only. If nothing noteworthy was ever published about the cover image itself, it means that we're not going to do any comments about this image, making it unnecessary.
- I hope I had cleared the matter. If you (or anyone else) has any other doubt, please, feel free to leave a (cool minded) message with your points. All the best, --Abu badali (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please you have blatant copyright paranoia, it's sad. Please don't try to act like you're educating people. See the Mandy Moore article, there's a fair use cover in there and nothing there that can't be conveyed in words. I don't see anyone having trouble with that and presumably hundreds of thousands of editors are trafficking that page today alone. Trevor GH5 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I never said this image was a copyright violation. --Abu badali (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- You said or implied that it shouldn't be used because it was copyrighted, also I commented on the talk page at Ashley Massaro because people were complaining about the image being listed. They have a right to know that they can come here and voice their opinions. Don't try to deny people being able to come here and say what they feel. Also I said copyright paranoia because all day you list pics on Wikipedia for deletion. I'm not the only one who's had arguments with you about this. Trevor GH5 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, I never said nor implied this image shouldn't be used because it was copyrighted. --Abu badali (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, Trevor GH5, you aren't. In fact, it is this type of one-track mindedness that helped his plea for admin powers get rejected. And thank heaven for the wisdom of those who did so. --JohnDoe0007 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- You said or implied that it shouldn't be used because it was copyrighted, also I commented on the talk page at Ashley Massaro because people were complaining about the image being listed. They have a right to know that they can come here and voice their opinions. Don't try to deny people being able to come here and say what they feel. Also I said copyright paranoia because all day you list pics on Wikipedia for deletion. I'm not the only one who's had arguments with you about this. Trevor GH5 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I never said this image was a copyright violation. --Abu badali (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please you have blatant copyright paranoia, it's sad. Please don't try to act like you're educating people. See the Mandy Moore article, there's a fair use cover in there and nothing there that can't be conveyed in words. I don't see anyone having trouble with that and presumably hundreds of thousands of editors are trafficking that page today alone. Trevor GH5 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete I remember being an image uploaded here or the commons where someone took a picture of Massaro's Playboy celebration. If it is found, this image is a CSD copyvio, and the other should be used instead. For that one, it explains both the fact she's was on the cover, and how WWE marketed her appearance. --wL<speak·check> 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- You think you saw something somewhere? Seriously? That's your reason? You may have seen one somewhere? Trevor GH5 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Fine. Go find it and prove there is an alternative to it. Just because you "think you remember" "someone" uploading an image like that doesn't provide evidence for CSD. What if I suggested your account be blocked from Wiki because I was "pretty sure I noticed similar writings from your account and another that looks like you were sock puppeteering...?" Should we just shoot first and then ask questions? --JohnDoe0007 06:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I see nothing wrong with it at the moment. Big Boss 0 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment User User:Trevor GH5 has posted a comment inviting editors to vote keep for this ifd, what may (or may not) cause a disproportional number of keep votes. I ask the closing admin to (more than ever) to read the arguments instead of counting votes. --Abu badali (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment reply I sincerely hope any admin would read ALL discussions relevant the the issue and would have a versed enough knowledge of Wiki policies and protocols that they don't need YOU telling them how to do THEIR job. --JohnDoe0007 05:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The cover is discussed in the text, aids in the understanding of the text, and is an image of a significant event for which no free alternative can be devised. --tjstrf talk 05:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kim Jong il 2.jpg
- Vandal picture consisting of Kim Jong il's portrait with Nazi decoration. Was uploaded by Hinomaru's 113th sockpuppet vandal account. — Kariteh 11:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:UNeSS.JPG
- - uploaded by Boulevardnorthonline (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Erbo Graf von Kageneck.jpg
- - uploaded by MisterBee1966 (notify | contribs).
- This image is under copyright Hofmann 1941 — 64.131.202.235 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:Tochapel1.jpg
- Orphan; source is "Image on Bishop Wordsworth's School website" (probably [1]), which seems to have no mention of the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lawn2.JPG
- - uploaded by Dickiedark (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, low quality, no context to determine encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Stimon.JPG
- - uploaded by Dickiedark (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, low quality, no context to determine encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:EdgbarrowSchoolAdmin.jpg
- The image is identical to the image of the school on the schools website (link on the article page) and of low resolution typical of a webpage illustration. The image should probably considered to be a copyright violation unless proven otherwise. — Snowman 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sherry (Black organisation).jpg
- - uploaded by Perlnovice (notify | contribs).
- CV, a scanned version should not be GFDL. — Jnlin 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:KRudy.jpg
[edit] Image:Bb logo tilt.jpg
- Orphan, PD-self claim is probably invalid (this is a logo). —Bkell (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The Blue Band.jpg
- Orphan; I doubt the PD-self claim, since the image has no metadata and this uploader has also claimed PD-self for images such as Image:Bb logo tilt.jpg (a logo) and Image:1901.jpg (taken in 1901). —Bkell (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:BJC.jpg
- Orphan; I doubt the PD-self claim, since the image has no metadata and this uploader has also claimed PD-self for images such as Image:Bb logo tilt.jpg (a logo) and Image:1901.jpg (taken in 1901). —Bkell (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:PSU formation.jpg
- Orphan; I doubt the PD-self claim, since the image has no metadata and this uploader has also claimed PD-self for images such as Image:Bb logo tilt.jpg (a logo) and Image:1901.jpg (taken in 1901). —Bkell (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:GLogo.png
- I have nominated an identical image for deletion before because of copyright issues. (here is that discussion). Now this one has been uploaded with the statement that "This rendition was created by Apakal who released it into the public domain." Apakal is a screen-name from the GirlChat messageboard. The account does not claim to be the logo's designer, just the one who made this particular image. It isn't clear that he has any standing to release claim to the image - or to publish a copy of the logo himself. Who Akapal is in real life is also unclear.
- However, the image is the logo of a political movement (pedophile activism), so it stands to reason that the original designer did want it to be copied and distributed as widely as possible. We just have no indication of who that original designer was. What is the protocol in cases like this? Can editorial decisions be based on the presumed intent of an unknown person? I am honestly uncertain of the answer.
- ETA: Sorry, it looks like (and I now recall) the second image already existed at the time of the first's deletion. DanB†DanD 20:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I honestly don't know. At worst, shouldn't we be able to claim fair use of the image for the Pedophile activism article (which discusses the logo) even if the current license is incorrect? --tjstrf talk 20:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- A possible source: http://graphics.puellula.com/GLogo.html ? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No, that is the source of the image that was deleted previously. Lindsay Ashford, who runs that site and edits as Zanthalon, doesn't know the original source of the logo. DanB†DanD 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Image:Purpleazalea.jpg
- I accidentaly uploaded the same image twice; same image as Image:Redazalea.jpg. Thegreenj 20:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:EDWIN_subina.JPG
- UE — Islomaniac 973 21:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg
- - uploaded by BassPlyr23 (notify | contribs).
- Broken fair use rationale. "Purpose of image: Illustration". "Replaceable: Can be rapleced at any time" Abu badali (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done EVERYTHING you have asked me to do regarding this file. Please explain to me - in detail - what you feel I need to do in order to prevent this file from being deleted. BassPlyr23 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- The first thing you need to do is avoid messages like this. Second, avoid removing the ifd tag, as it may be considered vandalism. Third, try to read and understand Wikipedia:Fair use. Then, after understanding what's Wikipedia position on unfree images used to the purpose of "Illustration" and that "Can be rapleced at any time", come back here and add your thoughts on this nomination. --Abu badali (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have reduced the quality of the photo and provided a fair use rationale Alex Bakharev 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- speedy keep as the rationale is as strong as one can be, and close the vote. --Irpen 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not a valid speedy keep. --Iamunknown 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: is this image easily replaceable? (→Netscott) 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Irpen.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Whether or not it is kept, it should not be tagged with {{film-screenshot}} because its use is not to "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents"; it is for identification of its contents, the massacred Israeli Olympic team, but it is not for both identification and critical commentary of both the film and its contents. As such, I've changed the tag to {{fair use in}}. --Iamunknown 05:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per above keep comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per above keep comments. Yakuman (数え役満) 06:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Withdraws - The original concerns I posted in the ifd nomination have been addressed. I still think the image has some sourcing problems (Who owns the copyright of a screenshot showing a picture? The movie's copyright holder or the picture's copyright holder?), but this was not in the nomination. --Abu badali (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
