Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] January 28
[edit] Image:Cicci_Kelly_Logo_Red_Small.jpg
- This logo was replaced by Image:FrankCicciLogo.jpg. This is no longer needed. --D-Day 14:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, both images were uploaded by D-Day thus I'd be willing to believe the user that the earlier one isn't needed (though only recently has the newer one started to be used). Mathmo Talk 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jl102728.jpg
- - uploaded by Wallerberjazz (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE orphaned image and hasn't been used for a while — UDHSS 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Delete unless its going to be used in the correct article. Tellyaddict 12:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jl102930.jpg
- - uploaded by Wallerberjazz (notify | contribs).
- OR, LQ, UE orphaned image and hasn't been used for a while — UDHSS 00:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jl103132.jpg
- - uploaded by Wallerberjazz (notify | contribs).
- OR, LQ, UE orphaned image and hasn't been used for a while — UDHSS 00:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom -- Tellyaddict 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jl103334.jpg
- - uploaded by Wallerberjazz (notify | contribs).
- OR, LQ, UE orphaned and low quality image and hasn't been used for a while — UDHSS 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jl103536.jpg
- - uploaded by Wallerberjazz (notify | contribs).
- OR, LQ, UE orphaned image and hasn't been used for a while — UDHSS 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jl103940.jpg
- - uploaded by Wallerberjazz (notify | contribs).
- OR, LQ, UE orphaned image and hasn't been used for a while — UDHSS 00:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jl104344.jpg
- - uploaded by Wallerberjazz (notify | contribs).
- OR, LQ, UE orphaned image and hasn't been used for a while — UDHSS 00:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jl104546.jpg
- - uploaded by Wallerberjazz (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE orphaned and un-encyclopediac image and hasn't been used for a while — UDHSS 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete - orphaned Fosnez 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Micropenis_erect.jpg
- - uploaded by Sara mulholland (notify | contribs).
*orpahned, yet another penis picture User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm not even going to look at this picture as it's obviously gonig to be DISGUSTING -- Tellyaddict 12:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have an issue with you !voting for delete if you have not even looked at the image. Also, I am removing my support for deletion as in my current review I have determined a very encyclopedic use of the image at micropenis and the talk page specifically requests an image be added.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Wikipedia is not censored. IMHO your delete vote should not count as you have just said you have not looked at it. Fosnez 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be some controversy about whether this illustrates the article (see edit summary on removal), but it should be sorted out. --TeaDrinker 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is currently being used, of course maybe later on it might be deleted. But now isn't yet the time. Plus I find it obviously DISGUSTING that a user would vote for deletion without even looking at it. Mathmo Talk 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I've looked at it, and it is neither a micropenis nor erect. —Angr 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: I think it's erect, but you can't tell because it's a micropenis. .V. [Talk|Email] 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Valid usage on Micropenis, a quick GIS would say that this is indeed a micropenis, indicated by the presence of public hair and scale of testicles. Fosnez 08:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Erect_female_nipple--profile.jpg
- orpahned, yet another nipple picture User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is an image in an article that was just ridiculous, supposedly illustrating an erect nipple but instead showed a full breast. I cropped the image and re-uploaded it. Feel free to delete away. CyberAnth 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I remember seeing this photo on several articles. It's orphaned now? .V. [Talk|Email] 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Erectpenis.JPG
- - uploaded by Bennyharvey327 (notify | contribs).
- orpahned, absent uploader, yet another penis picture User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Bennyharvey327 is blocked with an expiry time of indefinite and a reason given of vandalism account. Mathmo Talk 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Flacidpenis.JPG
- - uploaded by Bennyharvey327 (notify | contribs).
- orpahned, absent uploader, yet another penis picture User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Bennyharvey327 is blocked with an expiry time of indefinite and a reason given of vandalism account. Mathmo Talk 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Benspenis.jpg
- - uploaded by Bennyharvey327 (notify | contribs).
- orpahned, absent uploader, yet another penis picture User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Bennyharvey327 is blocked with an expiry time of indefinite and a reason given of vandalism account. Mathmo Talk 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Soft-hard.JPG
- - uploaded by Walchop825 (notify | contribs).
- orpahned, absent uploader, yet another penis picture User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: What's with all these penis pictures? .V. [Talk|Email] 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:MJE_Main_Image.jpg
- - uploaded by Xconstrictor (notify | contribs).
- orphaned, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This image is unencyclopedic as mentioned by nominator. Tellyaddict 12:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mikebest.jpg
- Orphan, not sure what the deal is with this photo, but it doesn't appear to be freely licensed. —Bkell (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- UE, as well as per nom -- Tellyaddict 12:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete UE Fosnez 08:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Autumn550.jpg
- - uploaded by Kim.dawson (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, no license given, but text indicates it is used with permission of the source User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Action taken - I have added it to Alexander Pogrebinsky, the apparent author of this work. It has apparently been used with permission. It is a nice picture. Fosnez 08:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia doesn't use by-permission only images. They need to either be free or have a fair use claim. This same individual has uploaded a boatload of this guy's work and tagged them all as having permission from the webmaster. One or two might be ok but a gallery of non-free images is usually a bad thing. --BigDT 02:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1440539667_l.jpg
- article was deleted orphan Balloonguy 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1475825968_l.jpg
- orphan article deleted Balloonguy 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vlada.jpg
- - uploaded by Steff infidel (notify | Contributions/Steff infidel).
- orphan article delted for notablity Balloonguy 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wasen't this image here the other day? definitely delete as its UE. Tellyaddict 12:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1126061226.jpg
- - uploaded by Andrew Plumb (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Orphaned Fosnez 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:CaptowSS.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:LAKE.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Pssible Keep This image is quite detailed and good, the only thing is its very small so if the user returns you could aks him/her to upload a larger version. Tellyaddict 12:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted - please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not free webhosting. In general, images that are not being used and are not going to be used any time soon are either deleted or, if they are potentially useful somewhere but just not here, moved to Commons. --BigDT 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Smlogan2.jpg
- - uploaded by Jessamynit (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Smvtbeach.jpg
- - uploaded by Jessamynit (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rob_rachlin.JPG
- - uploaded by Registering (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bobbyly.jpg
- - uploaded by Requiemfordante (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, I question PD claim - it reminds me of a movie image from something User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 03:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Orphaned, as well as "Wikipedia is not an image host." .V. [Talk|Email] 17:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mkmytyh-091-web.jpg
- - uploaded by Fiehnphoto (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, questionable PD claim User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Peace_from_Akhil.jpg
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Picture_163.jpg
- - uploaded by Sexyman1971 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pramod_Kamble.jpg
- - uploaded by Prakanthi2003 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contributionof user, uncyclopedic photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:IMG_0534.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, I question the PD license User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - No longer an orphaned imaged. Adds to the quality of an article in which the subjects are pictured. Appears to be a valid use of PD licensing. Luke! 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename - a beautiful picture, but it needs a better name. Fosnez 08:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Drivas.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 03:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cds.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg
- - uploaded by Trevor100a (notify | contribs).
- UE Vanity image - Infofreak 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, is currently being used in the Ejaculation article. Plus also I can remember seeing that picture from quite a while ago, so it has been used in that (and possibly other articles) for a while now at least. Mathmo Talk 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Stronger Delete As of today, this image has been on the Ejaculation article 36 days (added December 24 2006 buy user R9tgokunks), not a long time ago. It was uploaded by Trevor100a on September 1 2006 and 8 minutes later, added by Trevor100a to the Talk:Masturbation page. Trevor100a also placed this image on the Talk:Ejaculation page around the same time. On the talk page of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, this image is used as an example of a "Vanity image" on two different occasions. The only contributions that Trevor100a has made to wikipedia has been to upload and then place images of himself to the talk pages of Ejaculation, Masturbation, and Erection. The Ejaculation article is the only article on the english wikipedia that this image is currently used on. I can't find where this image has ever been used on any other articles anywhere. This particular image has spent it's entire life here at wikipedia on two of these three talk pages (Ejaculation and Masturbation). This image is also Obsolete because there is a better image offered on the Talk:Ejaculation page to replace it on the article. I also believe that the way in which the content of this image is portrayed is Unencyclopedic and is in violation of the current uncontested image guidelines established on the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality image guidelines page. Please read the histories of the Ejaculation article page as well as the discussions on the Talk:Ejaculation page before making your decision. Thanks NightFlyer 07:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- could you please point me to the discussion of this image on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines? I have searched the page, and see no discussion of this image at all. Jeffpw 14:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure Jeffpw, here is your requested information: Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines and click on the discussion tab, and then click on the history tab. From this page, click on the link that says "earliest". The page that lists this image as a vanity image is located at 00:03, 26 September 2006. This image is also listed on a page located at 15:08, 2 October 2006 as an example of a vanity image of masturbation. Interestingly, the very next day, on the page located at 00:27, 3 October 2006, this image was replaced as the example of a vanity image of masturbation to this image Image:Masturbation1a.jpg by guess who ? ...... Atomaton - aka Atom. Why am I not surprised. NightFlyer 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just to give some accuracy, the edit you refer to is Here, and was by Lyswim, on 24 October 2006 at 14:55 hours, not by me. Atom 22:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete it has been the subject of an edit war since the first day it was added to the ejaculation article. The image is UE and OB. It has been replaced by Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg 216.78.34.252 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete OB,UN I have been one of the people who have commented on this image on Talk:Ejaculation. Originally removing the image and commenting on why, the image was reverted without further discussion (initially) and I was accused of vandalism and failure to discuss in the comments. It has been discussed several times and is the object of ongoing controversy. It has been removed by several people, and reverted consistently. It has even been replaced, only to have the image in question reinserted in a different part of the page. It is now the pet project of some fellow Wikipedians who are very intent to keep the image on the page and go to great lengths to justify it (or stall due process around it). The Ejaculation article is the only actual article where the image is used, it is otherwise used in discussions about what it not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. NightFlyer has already noted some of my observations about the image. This image was posted to Ejaculation on Christmas eve, making it even more speculative as a prank. But more importantly, that this image does not have a long history on the page and has been the subject to anonymous removals, discussion, and revert warring ever since its inclusion. At the very least, the precedent for this image is that it is problematic, and certain users behavior concerning it have been questionable. I highly encourage the readership to review Talk:Ejaculation to get an idea of the antics surrounding this image. -- jsa 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Didn't you get the idea that then your removal of the image, and similar removals since then by other editors and anon IP's were reverted by Wednesday Island, LizardWizard, Atomaton, 216.78.46.167, Ts umbra, Alphachimp, JForget, Glen S, and JSIN, that there was a consensus of some kind? Atom 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep:(copied from the image talk page) This image has been controversial since it was uploaded, though I cannot understand why. First, people claimed it was photoshopped (see the talk page of the ejaculation article for that discussion.). Now the subject is too well endowed and circumcised. The first the subject can do little about, the second he presumably had no say in. Say what you will, the photo illustrates what the article is about. I, for one, don't come to Wiki to look for arousing photos, and I don't think the uploader contributed this image in order to arouse or inflame the senses of the public. I strongly feel the image should be kept, and I thank the uploader for his contribution to the Wikipedia community. Jeffpw 10:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I see no reasons above for why this photograph should be deleted except that it has been the subject of an edit war. That alone does not make it violative of any policies, and it's a good example of ejaculation. --DavidShankBone 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep:
- The deletion request is based on the mistaken idea that it is a vanity image. It is not. I am aware of the history of this image, as there was a great deal of discussion prior to it being submitted. (See diff[1]) The author did not place it in the article, but offered an image after participating in discussion on the talk page. Futhermore a review of WP:COI shows nothing applicable to this image. As a frequent editor of MANY sexology and sexuality articles, and as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality I run into vanity images frequently. I am opposed to vanity images, this simply isn't one.
- As I am the originating author of the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality image guidelines, and am participating in its development, I can say that it is *not* being used as an example in that document. The current example image for vanity is :Image:Masturbation1a.jpg. Because vanity images can be hard to determine (as indicated by the earlier discussion) we choose to look to WP:COI for guidance on that issue.
- It is an image that regardless of ones opinion of its origin, is appropriate only within a specific context. It is an example made to fit the need of the ejaculation article, and is perfect for that topic. I don't see that it would be appropriate in many other articles, but for the ejaculation article it has a number of significant attributes, besides being a free use (copyright, unlimited release) image. It shows the specific topic of the article. It shows that well, versus a number of other possibilities. A good image of that topic would not be easy to make or capture well. It is striking, in that a glance at it gives that "AHA" moment that we strive for in a lede image, so that the reader groks the topic at one glance with hardly a need to read the intro paragraph. It is an image about sexuality that is notable for not being sexually explicit, and therefore not meeting the miller test for obscenity, and also not requiring 2257 notification.
- Also, consider how long we have asked for anyone to give an improved free use image of the existing image on the semen article (:Image:Semen2.jpg) and have gotten no response. We are fortunate to have such a good quality image available that illustrates that specific topic so well.
- The claims of UE and OB above are absurd, and just hidden agenda for deleting an image that squicks them as too explicit for their personal tastes. These people would also offer images on the breast, penis and semen articles for deletion based on the same weak claims. It is important to send a message to people who want to censor images that are sexually oriented that Wikipedia does NOT censor. Note that none of them address the issues covered well in the talk pages regarding editorial decisions on images based on the quality and applicability to the article. They simply have a personal opinion that the image is objectionable (OB), but have not read the Wikipedia content disclaimer "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." that applies to all of us.
- Consider what would be left of Wikipedia if we catered to the lowest common denominator of what any user found objectionable? Especially if you consider the global community of readers.
- Atom 13:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete Vanity, UE, and OB I clicked on the thumbnail of this photo to go to it's description and license page. When I saw that the first words of the summary was "A picture of Trevor ejaculating", that tells me that Trevor wanted everyone to know that it is him in the photo, thus making it a vanity image. As far as being UE, encyclopedias use line drawings and clinical looking photos in articles concerning sexuality. This photo is not only non-clinical in it's depiction, it is laughable in the attempt to make it relevant for use in a legitimate encyclopedia. And lastly, OB stands for Obsolete, not "objectionable" Atom. This photo has been replaced by Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg. I looked at this photo too. It is a clinical depiction taken from a video clip that has already been widely accepted by wikipedias internationally. 208.61.125.82 17:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why would you say that it is obsolete? The photo has not been replaced by the image you mentioned, there had been a discussion of replacing it, and no consensus to do so. As Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg is in the article, and the other one is not, I'm not sure what you mean. And, are you suggesitng that the other image is somehow *more* clinical? Or will it you be listing it in the images for deletion next week? The other image (Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Still Frame.jpg) has not been used anywhere else(usage is only on the talk page of the ejaculation article). The video clip (Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration.OGG) that it was clipped from is used on other Wiki versions (in the nl.wikipedia.org once, and in the cs.wikipedia.org once.) (Wow! That is pretty wide. So, when you said it was widely accepted, did you mean that in both places it is at 500px? Or what?) Look, if you just don't like the image, you can just say so, there is no need to make things up. You get to vote how you want, either way. Atom 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't really see why this should be deleted. It gets the point across. .V. [Talk|Email] 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- copyvio web quality with no metadata and uploader with very few edits. History there is a trend of photos of this nature being copyvios.Geni 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Claim of copyvio is spurious. More than "it could be" is required to be substantive. Atom 14:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand the objections to the image. It seems to me to be neither a vanity image nor obsolete. In the interest of full disclosure, Atom notified me about this discussion, which I otherwise would not have found. LWizard @ 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- what is you case for it not being a copyvio?Geni 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the case is for it being a copyvio. Just because it has no metadata and the uploader has very few edits doesn't mean it's copyvio. Even if there's a trend of images like this being copyvio, it doesn't mean this particular image is copyvio. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- unless you know what you are doing you are unlikely to produce an image without metadata. If you do know what you are doing you are likely to upload at more than web quality.Geni 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- That simply is not true. A photo of mine of models in nothing but panties and heels vacuuming at a fashion show I had to crop, because a wall made it appear it was a scan. Once I cropped it, the metadata was lost. All of those images are found in the Wikimedia Commons, mostly under breasts, adult models, Tara Subkoff and Lingerie - where you can view the metadata. So, one doesn't need to know what they are doing to lose the metadata, they just simply need to crop out a head (such as in this case, presumably. --DavidShankBone 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, it might be useful to review this discussion on Copyright Paranoia found at Wikimedia Commons. Copyright paranoia is disruptive, I think. --DavidShankBone 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- That simply is not true. A photo of mine of models in nothing but panties and heels vacuuming at a fashion show I had to crop, because a wall made it appear it was a scan. Once I cropped it, the metadata was lost. All of those images are found in the Wikimedia Commons, mostly under breasts, adult models, Tara Subkoff and Lingerie - where you can view the metadata. So, one doesn't need to know what they are doing to lose the metadata, they just simply need to crop out a head (such as in this case, presumably. --DavidShankBone 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- unless you know what you are doing you are unlikely to produce an image without metadata. If you do know what you are doing you are likely to upload at more than web quality.Geni 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the case is for it being a copyvio. Just because it has no metadata and the uploader has very few edits doesn't mean it's copyvio. Even if there's a trend of images like this being copyvio, it doesn't mean this particular image is copyvio. .V. [Talk|Email] 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- what is you case for it not being a copyvio?Geni 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This image, in my opinion, is compatible with WP guidelines. It illustrates the subject of the article, and is not pornography. Why should readers not expect a photo of ejaculation in an article about ejaculation? JSIN 06:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- wikipedia policy requires things not to be a copyvio. They also require a source. In this case we can be fairly sure the uploader isn't the author.Geni 11:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Geni, you act as if you're speaking for Wikipedia as a whole when you say "we". You don't speak for me, and until you can prove that this is a copyvio, using that as an object is WP:ABF. Jeffpw 11:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Lets just say it would be fairly impressive if the uploader had managed to take the photo himself.Geni 12:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Have you heard of digital cameras that have timed release? How about 35mm with cable release? In any case, "it could be a copyvio" is a very weak statement. Atom 14:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Image shows a healthy male performing a natural act and is useful in an encyclopedia. Threats of vanity should not be made as their face cannot be seen Fosnez 08:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete - Vanity - UE - OB - Well Fosnez ... so it's not a vanity image because it doesn't show his face ..... DUH !!!!! ..... he gives his NAME !!!!!!! hahahahaha !!!! There are other posts here on Wikipedia where Trevor signs his name as TrevorM. Hell ... a few more letters and we'll know his full name !!!! (sorry about all of the exclaimations... but this is rediculously hilarious to me). And I know that all of you guys are gonna jump me to list where those posts are. I've read this discussion and have already seen how direct references to history pages are twisted here ... so LOOK FOR THEM YOURSELF !!!!!!!! they are there. UE ??? .... add a head showing this guy's "ohh face" to the photo and you have a wank fest image for a gay porno magazine (probably a crop from one anyway). And concerning the possible copivio of this image by Geni ... it was tagged for deletion from the very beginning for not having a copyright tag (go look for that too .... I did). OB ??? There was another image submitted as a possible replacement for this image ... Image:Ejaculation_Educational_Demonstration_Still_Frame.jpg. Ts_umbra used this image to replace the image in question on the ejaculation article and Atom reverted it. Atom rants about the image from the video can't make the current one OB because it has never been on the article page .... YOU WON'T LET IT !!!! hahahaha .... do you think that we are too stupid to realize that ??? Both images demonstrate ejaculation ... so the only difference in the two is the context that it is portrayed in. The guidelines for such articles as this says "Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used". That part of the guidelines was put there by Atom !!! You can make the rules ... but you can't live by them. And, if any of you don't like me using all the little ( .... ) that's my style so suck it up. 68.158.150.185 22:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. .V. [Talk|Email] 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you have convinced me... I'm not sure that you have convinced me that the article should be deleted, but I am convinced of a few other things. Gee, I wonder who you are a Sock Puppet for? Could someone delete his comments? Atom 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Atom is asking for censorship of the opinions expressed by 68.158.150.185 whose opinion disagrees with his own. Irony? -- jsa 18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not censorship. I'm concerned that an anon ip account that has only one edit ever on record, but expresses terminology of an experienced Wikipedia user is a sock puppet account. Perhaps even a second opinion and vote of one of the other people who have already offered opinions here. The reason I asked, rather than being bold, is because I wondered if others were concerned about that also. Atom 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Very beautiful image that illustrates the concept. Use it in the relevant article. Revert when it gets put in an irrelevant article. I admire how he's able to ejaculate upwards with his hand so close to the base and I like how his hand is not quite so big (my bofriend's hand is usually in the middle and he's got a big hand. It feels good but doesn't photograph so well. Anyhoo, let me sign before I start to ramble. Augurr 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Image kept; the only reasonings for deletion here are basically people appalled that a photograph of a man ejaculating and masturbating is being used in the article for Ejaculation. This, and the other relatively weak reasonings for deletion. I do not see how this is an unencyclopedic image, and it's not like we'll ever know that Trevor100a is bragging and telling his friends that his penis is on Wikipedia, so vanity is out of the question, really. The arguments by the editors in good standing here outweigh those of IP editors and editors who have a page of contribs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Poverty Rates-Newark.gif
- - uploaded by Jersey Devil (notify | contribs).
- Image:Poverty Rates in Newark, New Jersey in 2003 graph.png made this image obsolete. This old image is no longer used. —Remember the dot (t) 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Obsolete Fosnez 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Education-Newark.gif
- - uploaded by Jersey Devil (notify | contribs).
- Image:Educational Attainment of People in Newark, New Jersey in 2003 graph.png made this image obsolete. This old image is no longer used. —Remember the dot (t) 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - obsolete Fosnez 08:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pc250203-mod.jpg
- Useless image, part of the strange {{Tapas: Tapas Laha, Ph.D., http://students.eng.fiu.edu/~tlaha/}} — -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Orphaned Fosnez 08:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:34SSLSNL.jpg
- - uploaded by Ansbachdragoner (notify | contribs).
- 34SSLSNL.jpg - obsoleted by 34.SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Division.svg — Luke Roberts 07:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:6SSLMDivSymb.jpg
- - uploaded by Ansbachdragoner (notify | contribs).
- 6SSLMDivSymb.jpg - obsoleted by 27. SS-Freiwilligen Grenadier Division.svg — Luke Roberts 07:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tortora.jpg
- Apparently copyrighted per the uploader. No fair use. — —Brim 08:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Iraqattacksasofjuly2006.JPG
- - uploaded by Pablosecca (notify | contribs).
- Image has been obsoleted by Image:Iraqattacksasofjuly2006.png. The old image is no longer used. — SeanAhern 12:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:Scottmonument.jpg
- Orphaned, uploaded five years ago, doesn't seem like it's going to be on any article. — Tellyaddict 15:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
- Keep While it doesn't fit on the Scott Monument article, I have added it to the talk page. I think it provides a better sense of scale than either of the pictures on the current article. ~ BigrTex 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Downtown_017.JPG
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Objectify by David Shankbone.jpg
- - uploaded by DavidShankBone (notify | contribs).
- Image not used in articles, low quality, no indication that people in photo have given permission for use — — Atom 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
-
- The image is 1280x960, which is not low quality; the people were models there to be photographed, so no "permission" need be given--where do you get that from?-- and it is only not used in articles because you deleted it from the articles, with no discussion (against policy). --DavidShankBone 15:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever else may be true, the number of pixels wide an image is does not define whether or not it is of good quality. Things like focus matter as well. This image is not in focus. Moreover, if viewed at full resolution, there is obvious pixelation, so clearly it isn't even really a 1280x960 image, but a smaller one which was blown up. Sorry. --Strait 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not true - there was no cropping of the photograph, so it's at its original size. As for quality, some of the focus issues are easy to correct; I have other photographs of the same scene that don't wrestle with any focus problems, although I don't find them particularly problematic. Another editor commented that the photo should remain on the page under the RfC that Atom put up (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Self_promotion). --DavidShankBone 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever else may be true, the number of pixels wide an image is does not define whether or not it is of good quality. Things like focus matter as well. This image is not in focus. Moreover, if viewed at full resolution, there is obvious pixelation, so clearly it isn't even really a 1280x960 image, but a smaller one which was blown up. Sorry. --Strait 17:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- The image is 1280x960, which is not low quality; the people were models there to be photographed, so no "permission" need be given--where do you get that from?-- and it is only not used in articles because you deleted it from the articles, with no discussion (against policy). --DavidShankBone 15:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- High resolution is different than high quality. I don't care what resolution it is, and that has nothing to do with whether the image should be deleted, or not. The image has been inserted into an article now. Debate is ongoing as to whether the editors of that article want it there. The primary issue is whether the women in this picture have given permission to have their photograph published. This IfD is a forum for establishing that. The other editor that you discuss can feel free to comment here. If you took a photo at a public event, then you have a right to the photo, but not a right to publish it. If I am mistaken about that, please explain that to me. Atom 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please first explain which Wikipedia policies are informing your discussion. --DavidShankBone 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that a discussion begin at the talk page of the article the image was removed from, if there is a consensus that the image should be used in the article then it should be kept. Otherwise, it would need a place to be of use to remain here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:School_loop_layout.jpg
- - uploaded by Derrty2033 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, questionable PD claim as I believe it should be {{software-screenshot}}, plus, very small to make review difficult User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:My_Pictures-2.jpg
- - uploaded by Derrty2033 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Leibniz.jpg
- - uploaded by Damnedkingdom (notify | contribs).
[edit] Image:Bandphotonamesjpg.jpg
- - uploaded by Justingerstner (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent user, questionable PD claim, believe used in a deleted band bio article User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bosh 300 051221.jpg
- CV, marked as GFDL-self, taken from a blog. — Mosmof 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Offishall kardinal-790509.jpg
- CV, marked as GFDL-self, taken from a blog. — Mosmof 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:1857-P3-C-4.PDF
- - uploaded by Shubhamdixit (notify | contribs).
- These are very poor quality scans of pages of text. Claim of PD is questionable. They are all orphaned and the files are large (some as big as 6MB) — User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
Also included are:
- Image:1857-P-3-C-3.pdf
- Image:1857-P-3-C-2.PDF
- Image:1857-P3-C-1.pdf
- Image:1857-P-2-C-10.PDF
- Image:1857P2-C-9.PDF
- Image:1857-P-2-C-7.PDF
- Image:1857-P-2-C-6.PDF
- Image:1857-P-2-C-5.PDF
- Image:1857-P-2-C-4.PDF
- Image:1857-P-2-C-1-2.PDF
- Image:1857-P1-C-5-6.PDF
- Image:1857-P-1-C-3-4.PDF
- Image:1857-P-1-C-1-2.pdf
- Image:SGEPAGE26-51.PDF
- Image:SGEPAGE0-25.pdf
- Image:Lfa.pdf
- Image:Hindutva-pg46-91.PDF
- Image:Hindutva-pg1-45.PDF
[edit] Image:stinerichard2.jpg
- - uploaded by JeremiahJude (notify | contribs).
- Claimed GFDL without sufficient evidence while the source website http://www.stinerichard.com/ says "all reghts reserved". The same image has been uploaded twice and deleted twice before. — Jusjih 16:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ladychadwickposter.jpg
- - uploaded by Sheehanmds (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, unencyclopedic (article for future movie was deleted twice through AfD) — BigrTex 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The Berlin Cross.jpg
- - uploaded by Peter.barker (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned image, looks like a book cover, although not credited as such. — BigrTex 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:FUCLA.PNG
- UE & OR. Image used by the banned user, for vandalizing the UCLA article by replacing "UCLA" with "FUCLA". — Endroit 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:FUCLA1.PNG
- UE & OR. Image used by the banned user, for vandalizing the UCLA article by replacing "UCLA" with "FUCLA". — Endroit 20:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Erica_tetralix_2.jpg
- renamed version now on commons (name confilict with commons image, referring articles have been updated)
[edit] Image:Boot.jpg
- OR, UE , inserted into article and removed minutes later by user MECU≈talk 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete :O .V. [Talk|Email] 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:TerryDolan.jpg
- - uploaded by Malta_Tiger (notify | contribs).
- two people in one image can be confusing like this, source and license questionable MECU≈talk 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Algeciras 3en.jpg
- - uploaded by Flyingbird (notify | contribs).
- OR. Watermarks. — Rebelguys2 talk 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:37995175_37982462_IMGP0616-1-.JPG
[edit] Image:37995175_37982462_IMGP0615-1-.gif
[edit] Image:120-br.jpg
[edit] Image:Psy_mick.JPG
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencylopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Toshiya999.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, questionable GFDL license, insufficent information to determine encylopedic use User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wiki_image_head2.jpg
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Usa-flag.gif
[edit] Image:CanadaflagJOSEPH4.jpg
[edit] Image:Us can flag.gif
[edit] Image:ILOVEusa1.jpg
[edit] Image:Picture 166.jpg
[edit] Image:Cross3D1MEH.gif
[edit] Image:3d text 3.gif
[edit] Image:Canada300034.jpg
[edit] Image:TimHortonsOhio.jpg
[edit] Image:Yorkdale Atrium3.jpg
[edit] Image:Crowded Yorkdale.jpg
[edit] Image:Insideholt2.jpg
[edit] Image:Insideholt.jpg
[edit] Image:Yorkdale Mall Atrium.jpg
[edit] Image:Me...-Only-better.gif
- - uploaded by Simply cynical (notify | contribs).
- orpahned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wikpresa.jpg
[edit] Image:Nica de ic.jpg
[edit] Image:Image-Cad_lab.JPG
[edit] Image:Davewillspic.jpg
- orpahned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, maybe... with the info given do a 1 second google search [2] and we see that there is this site [3], which is were the image comes from. Or at least there is an identical image there. It would seem he is some kind of Internet Celebrity. A clip of him even was on The Jimmy Kimmel Show etc... Mathmo Talk 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- 'Delete: Not notable. Image not used. Atom 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Image-Guce_-_Pill_Music.JPG
- Absentee uploader claims he created the image. Highly doubtful. Nv8200p talk 23:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Image-Image-MAA.jpg
[edit] Image:GreatestPt.II.JPG
- - uploaded by Dislecksik (notify | contribs).
- UE, low quality, and only used in one non-notable article — Alex valavanis 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:GreatestPt.I.JPG
- - uploaded by Dislecksik (notify | contribs).
- UE, low quality, and only used in one non-notable article — Alex valavanis 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tulleh_Stock_7_by_Tulleh_Stock.jpg
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencylopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Illstreetninjaz.jpg
- orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencylopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm willing to agree and say this is not notable, should be deleted. Google searches only turn up with this and this. Mathmo Talk 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Actress_Tara_Leniston.jpg
- - uploaded by Mariagolpe (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, questionable GFDL license - believe it should be {{promo}} User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
