Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 5[edit]

Uploaded by Doug1984 (notify). OB Image:EscapePodLoading.jpg - smaller filesize (1MB+ down to 70KB) --Tom Edwards 09:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ddhix 2002 (notify).OR & OB - obsoleted by Image:Carisoprodol.png Jecowa 01:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cadmium (notify).OR & OB - obsoleted by Image:Cdbalun.png Jecowa 01:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Elkman (notify). Has been replaced on Jay Cooke State Park with another image that shows the whole bridge, in the sun, with no rainfall to spoil the picture. OR & OB - replaced by Image:Swinging Bridge.jpg. —Elkman 02:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Fibonacci (notify). OB by Pentomino sol.svg. —Fibonacci 04:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Francis Jones (notify). CV & OR - Fake. This image is the Julia, Hellraiser action figure by NECA with the nipples removed.


Uploaded by Frater_FiatLux (notify). Unencyclopedic; being used to "try" a living person on Talk:Golden Dawn tradition —999 15:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cicero affidavit is a factual court file and does not in any way infringe on painting Cicero in a bad light, nor is it painting a living person in a negative light. The document should be looked at more carefully. Frater FiatLux 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 999 is not correct, please see my infra comments on the last file that user 999 is in an unprincipled manner harrasing. Frater FiatLux 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Frater_FiatLux (notify). Unencyclopedic; being used to "try" a living person on Talk:Golden Dawn tradition —999 15:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cicero affidavit is a factual court file and does not in any way infringe on painting Cicero in a bad light, nor is it painting a living person in a negative light. The document should be looked at more carefully. Frater FiatLux 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 999 is not correct, please see my infra comments on the last file that user 999 is in an unprincipled manner harrasing. Frater FiatLux 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Frater_FiatLux (notify). Unencyclopedic; being used to "try" a living person on Talk:Golden Dawn tradition —999 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cicero affidavit is a factual court file and does not in any way infringe on painting Cicero in a bad light, nor is it painting a living person in a negative light. The document should be looked at more carefully. Frater FiatLux 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 999 is not correct, please see my infra comments on the last file that user 999 is in an unprincipled manner harrasing. Frater FiatLux 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Frater_FiatLux (notify). Duplicate of File:Document4-3.pdf —999 16:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cicero affidavit is a factual court file and does not in any way infringe on painting Cicero in a bad light, nor is it painting a living person in a negative light. The document should be looked at more carefully. Frater FiatLux 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 999 is not correct, please see my infra comments on the last file that user 999 is in an unprincipled manner harrasing. Frater FiatLux 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file comprises of fully verifiable information from the original public domain source. Information on how to download these documents for yourself are provided on the files pages themselves. They should not be deleted as the user that is attempting this “999” is of a rival order and is attempting to sabotage and interfere with present discussions and litigation to their own biased POV by deleting these public domain affidavits from the original source. -Frater FiatLux 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not a member of any Golden Dawn organization. If the documents are publicly available, link to them. WP is not your personal file storage service. -999 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Frater FiatLux:There is minimal fee for downloading the documents through the official courts web-site. Instructions are given on the page of the file on how to do this. To make the files immediately assessable to mediators, editors and people that want to view this verifiable original and factual information. They can simply do so by clicking the link in the talk page and going right to file, where they can open and browse at their leisure, without paying for it, or applying to the court for the records.
The file is linked to in many of the current talk threads and should not be deleted, as they are integral to some of the entries. Any opposition to remove these files is a clear, biased attempt at trying to interfere with the present talk, discussion dispute that is currently being considered by the mediator. Furthermore the mediator handling the disputation hasn’t made any remarks to me -whatsoever-to remove the file. -Frater FiatLux 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are being used in clear violation of the WP policy on Living Persons. That is, they are being used solely to slander an individual. The WP policy on Living Persons (WP:LIVING) is clear: Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. These documents are not court findings, they are affidavits and other legal documents that have yet to be interpreted by a court. You are using them to smear a living person in violation of WP policy. Per policy, they should be speedily deleted.
Uhm, if they are actual court documents, they can't be "solely to slander" (or rather, libel). They are, at least, factual as evidence that a court case exists and that certain allegations were made. They don't, of course, prove the claims in the case. --FOo 07:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's naive. Read the Talk:Golden Dawn tradition page. In one case, the document is acutally the subject's complaints in a slander case, a case the subject won. Some of the slander is being repeated from the document, including that he ran a strip club and that he was dishonorably discharged from the military. The source is the person who lost the slander case!!! That is, these "facts" were judged to be slanderous!
Also, per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." So these are not considered reliable sources and cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. Why are they here? Per WP:LIVING, poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. I think that the combination of the two policies is pretty clear. These policies are to keep WP from getting sued or subpeonaed in lawsuits. -999 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

That’s rubbish 999, absolute rubbish, there’s no way that anyone can get sued from those publicly available court documents, and User FoO is correct.

I will reiterate what I told you, to in reply to your threat to me on the talk page I will be reporting you to the relevant admin pages for this threat and for also tampering with the files I uploaded. Suddenly one or two have conveniently gone missing.

I have already addressed the legal threat directed at myself with the relevant comment, however, I appreciate Kephera’s support. Any other comments on this matter though I feel are rather unnecessary and will only further perpetuate the schism makers, and further add to the burden of the mediator. The relevant comments have been made; I now feel it best that the outright threats by these schism makers should be treated with the appropriate disdain. I consider it very appropriate to treat such misleading, defamatory attacks on the HOGD/A+O's integrity seriously, to which I'm a member, and feel this rightly constitutes a formal and proper form of correspondence. This is not to be misinterpreted as some have in a very ill judged manner, to claim that I am legally threatening users, or that a formal comprehensive style is slanderous. User 999, your message supra however, is a direct threat and a perfect example thereof. I have only stated the facts and have not therein my posting attempted to deliberately slander Cicero, although, to biased eyes it could be appear that way. The fact that Cicero doesn’t appear to have a whiter than white background when the facts are compiled, or that these facts do not live up to expectations of Cicero supporters or licensees; frankly is not my fault. The sources in my posting cover a range of books, some of which are even written by Cicero, and original from the source court affidavits; and these aren’t all based around Cicero, or with the sole intent to slander Cicero, whatsoever. I am not interested in -anyone's- opinion of my writing style, and furthermore my writing style has nothing -whatsoever- to do with any of the matters at hand in this disputation. The fact that I treat correspondence seriously with schism makers attempting to misrepresent and defame the order I am a part. I consider is highly appropriate and should not be misrepresented as slanderous or threatening. Although, user 999 has given us a perfect example of what a direct threat constitutes. "/wiki/User:Frater_FiatLux" 01:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: By Frater FL Your threat of informing Cicero’s lawyers doesn’t bother me -Whatsoever-; he cannot do a single thing about anything that I’ve written. I’ve back up the articles entries with comprehensive sources that are in the main, books in print that are verifiable, and even written by Cicero. The affidavits are publicly available documents and are open to anyone. I am in violation of nothing, therefore he can do nothing, so your threat is unfounded. All important points of the disputation are verifiable from books in print with relevant quotes, to which I have duly, and comprehensively given in my posting. The affidavits are only therein included to back up verifiable information that is obvious, and are the only integral documents to back certain claims in the HOGD/A+O entry. Such as the agreement between Griffin and Behman. This type of biographical information can only be soured from actual publicly available original sourced documents, that are signed by the hand of Griffin and Behman. To which I might add, is comprehensive factual, and accurate information. "/wiki/User:Frater_FiatLux" 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded by Hahnchen (notify). orphan. Thunderbrand 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I've actually reinserted this into the article as it is the only screenshot showing the destruction of City 17 and Dr Kleiner in the Episode One article. I also believe we have a slightly better claim of fair use on Valve released promotional material over user taken screenshots. Thanks for letting me know though. - Hahnchen 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Keep howcheng {chat} 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - There are clearer images than this of the destruction, like this promotional shot or even a screen of the third menu background minus interface. The current one is dark, obscured and unclear. --Tom Edwards 15:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_June_5&oldid=1138513812"