Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 July 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 22[edit]

Uploaded by Troyboysc (notify). CV from [1], user has uploaded a large number of questionable images. Two other users have left messages on his talk page asking for him to offer an explanation for his use of free image tags, but no explanation has been given.- BigDT 00:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Akhristov (notify). Uploaded under the wrong name.- — Alex (T|C|E) 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, you can use {{db-author}} to request a speedy deletion of any page that you created by mistake and for which you are the only substantial contributor. BigDT 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Coburnpharr04 (notify). Claimed fair use, but not fair use (press image per WP:Fairuse counterexamples) - free (admittedly lower quality) image are available (see image talk page). Megapixie 02:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong on all counts. So called alternative images are unusable. This one is almost certainly a Vatican image issued generally to the press. The Vatican takes official portrait shots and issues them to anyone who wants one all the time. The have photographers for that purpose. The media doesn't do portaits. If it is being used by the media, it is because, like Wikipedia, they got a Vatican photo, not because they took it themselves and then had their shot nicked by some nasty person on WP. Use some cop-on. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calm down. This user, like I, had probably never heard this before. Can you provide any kind of citation for this claim? That way, a template can be made allowing these images to be used as "fair use" images. BigDT 04:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible I suppose - but it's still proports to be fairuse, which it isn't. Also someone has altered the image (flipped) - which is against fair use. Perhaps someone who speaks better Italian than me could contact these people (http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/photo/ph_index_ita.html) and get official permission to use a couple of images - if the vatican really distributes the images to anyone who wants them - then maybe they'd consider letting us use a few under the GFDL - which would be better since the images could be used in print versions of wikipedia. There is no room for "cop-on" in fairuse law. Megapixie 07:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the Vatican is distributing the photos to any media service that asks free of charge, I'd say it would probably qualify as fair use under those circumstances. That said, just indiscriminately finding pictures of the pope and saying, "well, they must have come from the Vatican" is a dangerous road to go down - I think it would b a better idea, as you said, to ask permission and get them straight from the Vatican. Nobody, just by looking at a photo, can tell if it came from the Vatican's internal photographers or someone else. If, on the other hand, the media services pay for the use of the photos, just like your local newspaper pays the AP for the use of its photos, the images would almost certainly NOT be fair use under WP:FAIR Counterexamples #5. There is, I should mention for the sake of completeness, the third alternative - that Jtdirl is mistaken about the exact source of these images, and honestly, until evidence is found for the source of these images, I think we need to treat them just like any other media photos. I looked all over the Vatican's website a few days ago when Jtdirl and I had this conversation about related images and I couldn't find anything supporting this claim. I'm not saying that it isn't true - I'm saying I don't know if it is true and we need documented evidence that it is true before we procede on the basis that it is.BigDT 12:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Acelor (notify). Image is from puppyfind.com - uploader claims PD, but I see no evidence on puppyfind.com for this claim.- BigDT 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Acelor (notify). Image is from suite101.com - uploader claims PD, but I see no evidence on suite101.com for this claim.- BigDT 02:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Acelor (notify). Image is from www.kirschbaum-cavaliere.de - uploader claims PD, but I see no evidence on www.kirschbaum-cavaliere.de for this claim.- BigDT 02:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cranmr (notify). OR, UE, user's only contributions are uploading pictures presumably of himself- BigDT 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Obltfabian (notify). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, no longer an orphan; it is being used in HSG-Big Band. —Bkell (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Bllix (notify). Orphan, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind again; tagged for speedy deletion as a duplicate of Image:Bllix 2006.jpg. I guess I need to check user contributions before nominating these things. —Bkell (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). Uploader asserts, "Property of Parramatta local council, all documents owned by australian government are non copyright and available for reporduction by australian people." This is apparantly false, however, according to Template:PD-AustraliaGov, which cites [2]. According to this source, crown copyright materials only become PD after 50 years.- BigDT 04:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). OR, UE- BigDT 04:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • whats wrong with this image? it is a fine example of the topic it was assign to. can you please explain whats wrong with it. (Paulscf 13:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
      • The image is currently unused. It has no context telling what it is and I can't imagine a use for it in an article. Also, it looks like a photograph of a billboard or a poster in which case, it may be a copyright violation. BigDT 15:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Tulip chair.JPG (talk | delete)
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). Appears to be a derivative of http://www.steelform.com/tulip.html and thus CV- BigDT 04:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV from http://www.superestudio.com/imagenes/productos/F103/F1031.jpg- BigDT 04:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV - I couldn't find the exact image, but it's obviously a derivative of [3] or at least a close cousin- BigDT 04:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV - again, I couldn't find the exact image, but it's obviously a derivative of [4]- BigDT 04:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV, obviously a derivative of [5]- BigDT 04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV, obviously a derivative of [6]- BigDT 04:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV, copyvio from [7]- BigDT 04:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV, copyvio from [8]- BigDT 04:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV, copyvio from [9]- BigDT 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Marco Polo (notify). Orphan, not a faithful recreation of Image:2co-logo.jpg which it is meant to replace. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Coolkid13 (notify). Orphan; uploader claims to be the creator but the image seems to be a collage of logos, so licensing claims are pretty shaky. —Bkell (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Coolkid13 (notify). Orphan; almost identical to Image:MediaCorpTV12.jpg listed immediately above, but not quite, so can't be speedied. Same reasons apply. —Bkell (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by DeanML (notify). Orphan, unencyclopedic, no source or licensing information. —Bkell (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by OldakQuill (notify). Orphaned Flash file. —Bkell (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From uploader's talk page:
Delete it. Uploaded as community joke, no longer used. --Oldak Quill 13:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Chx (notify). Orphan, unencyclopedic, no licensing information (although could be presumed GFDL). —Bkell (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by MatthewFenton (notify). OB- Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of three fair use images to depict the exterior of the 787. This image is of a 787-8, making it the second (see Image:NW Boeing 787.jpg) Mark83 11:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, on the point that its purpose was not to show an example of another 787, but to show Air Canada's new fleet. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know where you're coming from, it's a nice image. However we can't upload numerous images showing every carrier's livery on a 787 (accompanied by other aircraft or not). Mark83 22:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another fair use image at Airbus A350 shows the old design. Only benefit of this image is to show old livery, not enough I would argue for a fair use claim. Mark83 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me either way. It's useful to have this picture there; since it gives a good side view of the old A350 concept, for which images are notoriously hard to find. However given that Airbus have fully committed to the new XWB concept, I agree that there's some duplication there, and it may be better to replace this image with a side view of the A350 XWB, when one becomes available. Jgarth 01:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cygnostik (notify). Orphan, spam. —Bkell (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Llorgge (notify). OR, AB, possibly CV as the author is not credited. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Llorgge (notify). OR, AB, possibly CV as the author is not credited. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Maliafka (notify). OR, AB. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Paulscf (notify). CV from [10]- BigDT 15:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Wpena.jpg CV. This is not a promo picture but a news picture with no good rationale to use as fair use. -Nv8200p talk 15:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Abu badali (notify). OR Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UbuntuLogo.svg caused problems with MediaWiki. The original Adobe SVG did not render in some situations and updated file revisions didn't always show up. Marked for speedy deletion, because the upload with the new file name Image:Ubuntu_Logo.svg seems to fix that problem. --KAMiKAZOW 09:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by ACX (notify). OR, UE, WP is not free webhosting- BigDT 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Sam0el (notify). OR, PD assertion is questionable - just making a derivative of someone else's work doesn't make it your own, at any rate, the page it was used on was speedied- BigDT 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Kyasper (notify). CV from 4thegame.com. Uploader asserts "Free Use", but no evidence is given.- BigDT 17:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Antialias (notify). The uploader origianlly tagged this image with {{Somewebsite}}. That tag was replaced with {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, however, there is no evidence that the copyright holder has released their rights. Thus, it is probably a CV.- BigDT 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Antialias (notify). Almost certainly a CV, tagged with the highly unlikely GFDL-self.- BigDT 19:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by MCRiv (notify). CV, patently false copyright tag- BigDT 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by MooCowz69 (notify). OR, UE. This has no place here on Wikipedia other than use in vandalism. Billdorr 21:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_July_22&oldid=1050727954"