Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 11
March 11[edit]
Image:BenAveryShootingFacility.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Magnusgrafex (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, possible Copyright violation (image is from an Arizona state government website - state-owned material is not PD) Coredesat 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Potter wasp.jpg[edit]
- Tagged as "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose", but the terms from the source site say noncommercial and personal use only. Now orphaned; it was formerly used on the Australian hornet page but does not depict that species. — —Celithemis 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Hi-5-photo.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Lincalinca (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation. No indication that the image has been released under the GFDL. Link provided gives no information about licensing. Searching for the Hi-5 and Five site, I can't find any notice releasing this under the GFDL. Regardless, the image has a copyrighted logo, the same of which the user has uploaded under a fair use rationale, and nobody is allowed to release an image with unfree elements under the GFDL. — Rebelguys2 talk 06:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kellys my december.JPG[edit]
- not an album cover, a screenshot of a copyrighted photoshoot video fro the official fan club available to members only — Alankc 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Image:Kelly album.jpg[edit]
- not an album cover, a screenshot of a copyrighted photoshoot video fro the official fan club available to members only — Alankc 06:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Batch of old TV station logos (CV)[edit]
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Mtstroud (notify | contribs).
- Delete (CV) - Fair use copyright claim, however all logos are at least thirty years old (long out of date) and are of no value to their associated articles (past logos are not inherently notable). Uploader admits scanning logos from a copyrighted publication. — /Blaxthos 06:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
- Personally, I cannot see why TV Guide, its present owners News Corp, or the television stations would press charges against Wikipedia for a harmless historical referent such as these images, as they certainly have no conceivable negative impact upon the sales of the magazine currently or upon station viewership. In fact, TV Guide has discontinued local station listings, in favor of broadcast and cable networks only, so I contend the copyright infringement charge to be a moot one. What is telling about Blaxthos' accusation is that he believes them not "inherently notable." This, to me, is a subjective value judgment that runs counter to this website's encouragement of free expression within reasonable limits. I know that graphic storage space on Wikipedia is certainly not unlimited, and that priorities must be made, but I know that there must be far worthier targets of a purge (actual plagiarism, etc.). I suspect the user is acting from petty or malicious motivation. I intend to contest this blacklisting to the highest court of appeal, if necessary. If I passively accept his/her arbitrary judgment and the images get deleted, it is likely no one will be safe from him/her in the future.Mike 14:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mike, I might suggest you read the Wikipedia rules regarding fair use (we must be compliant with both the law and wikipedia guidelines, as well as the instructions included in the boiler plates you chose (including finding the correct template) before crying foul. One, the liklihood of copyright holders' intentions has no influence on the decision. Two, all of these stations have abandoned those logos (long ago), and there is no historical value to posting old logos on company pages (especially local TV providers). As stated previously, there is no inherent notability in defunct logos. Each article has a current graphic; adding old graphics lifted from copyrighted material definitely does not comply with our fair use policies. I might suggest you also read WP:NPA as well -- you're awful close to the line. /Blaxthos 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to find a television station's logo sufficiently notable to appear in an article about that station. However, I notice that all of these image lack a detailed fair use rationale, at best being marked with a boilerplate fair use template (note that the text of the {{logo}} tag specifically says that a fair use rationale is required). Per WP:CSD#I6, these images are eligible for speedy deletion should someone care to mark them with {{subst:nrd}}. —RP88 14:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- So tagged. /Blaxthos 18:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I've added fair use rationales to all of the above images. Also, please note that the notability guidelines do not apply to items within an article, but to the topic which is the subject of the entire article. DHowell 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- All good points on both sides, but these images are orphaned and should be deleteed. --Selket Talk 02:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not all were orphaned, and the ones that were are only because User:A Man In Black keeps removing them from the articles. See Wikipedia:Fair use/Historical logos in galleries and Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Historical images for a history of that dispute. I've put the images back, but expect them to be removed by this user again. DHowell 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I expected, they have been removed again, and he has threatened me with blocking if I reinsert them. These images should not be deleted for being orphaned while their status within their respective pages is being disputed. DHowell 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, there appears to be some misrepresentation of policy here -- please see the ongoing discussion at Dhowell's talk page. If the image isn't actually part of the article (ie has commentary) then it fails the fair use rationale. As stated previously, their mere presence adds no value (historical or otherwise) to the article -- simply existing is not a fair use rationale, and they are not otherwise notable to the subject. They should be speedied, post haste (crusaders notwithstanding), not because they are orphaned, but because they are a copyright violation of no value (as the AFD states). /Blaxthos 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:REAGANRONANCY.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Mynameisjim93 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan - This image is an exact duplicate of an image uploaded to commons in 2005. I've switched all occurances to use the one from commons. —RP88 12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Batch of redundant Reagan photos (OR)[edit]
- - uploaded by Happyme22 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Happyme22 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Happyme22 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Happyme22 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Happyme22 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by Happyme22 (notify | contribs).
- Orphans - These images are all exact duplicates of images uploaded under other names to commons in 2005. I've switched all occurances to use the ones from commons. —RP88 12:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:305.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Chflitwick (notify | contribs).
Image:306.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Chflitwick (notify | contribs).
Image:4040.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Chflitwick (notify | contribs).
Image:GatewayFootballConferenceMap.PNG[edit]
- - uploaded by SportsMasterESPN (notify | contribs).
- GatewayFootballConferenceMap.PNG - obsoleted by Gateway Football Conference map.png — Craig R. Nielsen 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Shishman_Street_Downtown_Sofia.jpg[edit]
Image:Sofia_panorama.jpg[edit]
Image:National_Foreign_Art_Gallery_Sofia.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, advertisement, url to "tours" website MECU≈talk 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sofia_Tram.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, advertisement to "tours" website MECU≈talk 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sofia_Main_Highway.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, advertisement to "tours" website MECU≈talk 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Green.jpg[edit]
Image:Garajonay.JPG[edit]
Image:Vitoshka_i_Alabin.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, advertisement to "tours" website MECU≈talk 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:HurricaneWilma_wind_swath_Updated_New.GIF[edit]
- Orphaned, semi-redundant to Image:Wilma 2005 track.png on commons MECU≈talk 20:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Malta_StAngelo_seven.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic? confusing license: claimed copyright and stated all rights reserved but then released under GFDL-self MECU≈talk 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? GFDL images are copyright and all rights are reserved except for those specifically licensed to a third party through the GFDL. In order for the GFDL to work (i.e., derivative works must be GFDL also) the image must be copyright. I mean, delete this b/c it is orphaned, but I don't see the copyright issue. --Selket Talk 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Copyright is fine – GFDL itself is a kind of copyright – but the "All Rights Reserved" is a little weird. Orphaned, anyway. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? GFDL images are copyright and all rights are reserved except for those specifically licensed to a third party through the GFDL. In order for the GFDL to work (i.e., derivative works must be GFDL also) the image must be copyright. I mean, delete this b/c it is orphaned, but I don't see the copyright issue. --Selket Talk 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Candice_miller.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Yetiwriter (notify | contribs).
Image:Wgsimonmooreslaw002.jpg[edit]
Image:1upMushroom3d.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Insanenerd (notify | contribs).
- Unphotoshopped image is a copyrighted screenshot; this is photoshopped, but if you undo the photoshop, it's copyrighted by Nintendo. Currently it's disputed, but we're putting this image for deletion here.- Bigtop 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Kristen Bell as Veronica Mars.jpg[edit]
- This is a 22 Kb picture uploaded by a Kristen Bell fan (he claims to be her father...). The edits of this user are restricted to the actress' article. I couldn't find a source, but the picture does not seem PD-self to me. — Dantadd 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Had the tagger done their research (by looking at talk pages) they would notice that it was the actresses father who uploaded the image. Matthew 00:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did it and I added it right away. But if the uploader is really her father why a 22KB picture? Dantadd 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, did you want it at 21kb? Good lord.. Matthew 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not OVER sized. If you are the photographer you can add a normal picture with a normal file size and 22Kb is the size of a thumbnail (even a regular cel phone picture is bigger than 22Kb). So, here I can say that I'm Angelina Jolie's uncle and upload thumbnail I find on the Internet? Dantadd 00:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You obviously no little about images (judging my your lack of knowledge on commons as well), 22kb is actually ample size for an image of that res, obviously if you'd done your research you'd see it's pretty much set in stone he is indeed her father, Assume good faith he has no reason to lie, perhaps? Matthew 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I found the source of the picture here. Dantadd 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to get that page translated *hint*, not to mention Tom Bell has uploaded that image to several websites, also how do you know it's the source :-)? Matthew 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I see... well, let me concentrate on Commons. It's no use here. Dantadd 01:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We know it was there first because google has picked it up but it hasn't picked up the image on wikipedia given the rate at which google indexs wikipedia that strongly suggests the other site had it first. "sly159" also uploaded this notice the jpg compression? A little odd for a family photo. This also provides fairly solid evidence of off wikipedia orgin. It is fairly safe to assume that the photos are shown in the order they are submited we know that the second photo has been on the net since June 12th 2006.Geni 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Tomsnet ("TomsNet.Net is the official home of the Bell Family on the Net. Live from Phoenix."): [1]. Specifically look at the image.. the links a give away as well.. Matthew 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Picture does not appear on that site. Without permission sent to OTRS we cannot use the image.Geni 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly why few people will submit free imagery to Wikipedia, a hole in one there my friend! I don't see any policy however saying we drop AGF and make uploaders prove images are free though.. point it out? Matthew 02:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Who said that AGF also applies to possible copyvios? When there is strong doubt that an image or text is indeed free, the uploader has to prove it. --88.134.140.64 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly why few people will submit free imagery to Wikipedia, a hole in one there my friend! I don't see any policy however saying we drop AGF and make uploaders prove images are free though.. point it out? Matthew 02:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Picture does not appear on that site. Without permission sent to OTRS we cannot use the image.Geni 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Matthew will be canonized by copyright violators! Dantadd 04:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -- *******! This entire conversation got really stupid really fast. You guys stop flaming each other, okay? See WP:CIVIL. As for the photo in question, I believe in good faith the photo is a family photo. As it is PD, it can go everywhere, you see. That may be why it has been picked up elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It hasn't been picked up elsewhere. Elsewhere had it first.Geni 12:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it was on tomsnet.net first, in January 2005. And note that that's actually the same file; the other website Dantadd found has a version with more noticeable jpeg artifacts, as if it's been slightly sharpened and then recompressed.—Celithemis 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone thought to email tomsnet.net and ask if we can use it? -- Selket Talk 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep absent compelling evidence against (and certainly no OTRS takedown notice) I think we should assume good faith. There is compelling evidence to support that Tomsnet is who he says he is. This is close, but I think we should grant him the opportunity to verify his identity / validate the status of the image. --Selket Talk 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, or else the policy should be rewritten to say "Do not upload your own photos to Wikipedia if you've uploaded them anywhere else, unless you provide a signed form in triplicate to the Wikimedia Foundation that you are indeed the photographer and copyright owner of said images, and swear on a stack of Bibles (or Qur'ans, where appropriate) that copyright doesn't belong to someone else." DHowell 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, for now, as per WP:AGF. Also, I have sent an email to the company that registered the website, asking them to forward it to the webmaster of tomsnet.net to confirm or deny User:Tomsnet's identity. - Oops, forgot to sign. Blur4760 00:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
wow! this is a tough place! ok all, here's the answer to the mystery. The tomsnet.net site is our family website (and has been for years). I added a page in 2005 (tomsnet.net/kristenbell.htm) which was cited above. The picture was taken by her mom on the set during season one. I cropped it, and stripped it for easier download and put it on that page. It does not suprise me that the pic was copied to fansites.. pretty easy to do. I still have the original pic, uncropped. Now, as a wise man said earlier in this discussion: how about assuming a little good faith? Regards to all who keep the wiki project going. --Tomsnet 18:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC) deleted name for security. thnx. --Tomsnet 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)