Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 5

< September 4	September 6 >

September 5

Image:Jabref-2.2-screenshot.png

Image:Jabref-2.2-screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mortenalver (notify | contribs).

Moved image to the Commons +mt 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Commonsbleed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:Blacktown trackplan.png

Image:Blacktown trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).

Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 01:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legitimate Content Troll user has appeared out of nowhere and vandalized articles, created numerous bogus ifd's and removed warnings from his talkpage. I believe from this contributions that this user may be a sockpuppet of a Wikipedia prankster, and should be given a checkuser. aliasd·U·T 05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GFDL image used in article. No reason to delete. --Knulclunk 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is much easier to include this as a diagram then as text, and it also allows us to supply more detail than practicle in text - the extra detail is, IMO, an advantage. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with all these listed trackplans. All are free and useful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marayong trackplan.png

Image:Marayong trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).

Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader. Endarrt 01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legitimate Content Troll user has appeared out of nowhere and vandalized articles, created numerous bogus ifd's and removed warnings from his talkpage. I believe from this contributions that this user may be a sockpuppet of a Wikipedia prankster, and should be given a checkuser. aliasd·U·T 05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GFDL image used in article. No reason to delete. --Knulclunk 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is much easier to include this as a diagram then as text, and it also allows us to supply more detail than practicle in text - the extra detail is, IMO, an advantage. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Quaker's Hill trackplan.png

Image:Quaker's Hill trackplan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quaidy (notify | contribs).

Unenyclopaedic, information could/should be included in the text. Not appropriate level of information for a general encyclopaedia, or of interest to a general reader Endarrt 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Legitimate Content Troll user has appeared out of nowhere and vandalized articles, created numerous bogus ifd's and removed warnings from his talkpage. I believe from this contributions that this user may be a sockpuppet of a Wikipedia prankster, and should be given a checkuser. aliasd·U·T 05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GFDL image used in article. No reason to delete. --Knulclunk 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is much easier to include this as a diagram then as text, and it also allows us to supply more detail than practicle in text - the extra detail is, IMO, an advantage. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:PP Fibres & Explosive Spalling.pdf

Image:PP Fibres & Explosive Spalling.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TrevorWatkinson (notify | contribs).

CV,UE. I believe this is a CV since it is from a magazine. The person uploading is probably the author, but that cannot be verified, and he probably signed a copyright release when publishing it at the magazine. I do not think it is encyclopedic anyway. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2688123 main.jpg

Image:2688123 main.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lynxfs06 (notify | contribs).

Fanmade art for a movie also up for AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daredevil 2. ThuranX 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:Mmandbass.jpg

Image:Mmandbass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hibana (notify | contribs).

previously speedy deletion nominated, user removed tag, deadline expired, still speedy deletion nomination, though time has expired. Ejfetters 04:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. So far as I can tell, this image was only up for deletion because it lacked a rationale. I added a rationale. I don't see any further problems with the image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:003moltres1yx.jpg

Image:003moltres1yx.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cascade Gonpory (notify | contribs).

States in the description that the character is copyrighted plus no articles link to this file. Calibas 04:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to nom this for speedy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy accepted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:SimonCowell.JPG

Image:SimonCowell.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tratare (notify | contribs).

Fair use image of living person replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below for discussion on this issue

Delete per Wikipedia:Non-free content 3.6, No. 12. "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." This states what I have been trying to say right here. Ejfetters 06:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, as the image is no longer being used to provide commentary on the subject in question, and has been moved to the article's body. Ejfetters 09:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:AnneRobinson.JPG

Image:AnneRobinson.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tratare (notify | contribs).

Fair use image of living person, replaceable with free use image Ejfetters 05:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's known, I am having an issue with Ejfetters on a number of other pages as well, including Simon cowell. It's the same issue as with this page. Let it be known, Ejfetters is in violation of the 3 revert rule, which you're supposed to be blocked for a period of time for. If you will take a look at the Simon Cowell page, he's reverted that same edit over 3 times Here,[1], Here, [2] , Here [3] , and here was his 4th [4] . I explained to him that the image was usable because screen shots were able to be used for critical commentary and discussion, and he continued to revert the page. Further, he called me a vandal for my reverting the page here, in trying informing me to administrators [5] which was totally inapprorpriate, as I didn't even revert the page over 3 times like he did. This is NOT considered vandalism and I think that speaks for itself in regards to his not understanding of wikipedia. I believe he needs to understand that term vandal better. If you'll look at the user's talk page before he blanked it, you will see that he's made numerous mistakes in regards to images and other people have had problems with him removing images as well. Thank you Tratare 06:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at your own link the 4th link, I did not remove the image at all. I simply followed the procedure laid out in this page that states if the image is nominated for deletion to include the tags for the image and the captions if the image is in use. Others have removed fair use images of living persons, I can't remember the policy they quoted me when I uploaded a fair use image for a living actor, but I am researching it. Yes, I make mistakes, and I will continue to make mistakes. That is what this page is for, nomination, and if I am found wrong, then I am wrong. That doesn't mean that I should stop editing because I made mistakes. Ejfetters 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The 4th link has now been corrected to show that Ejfetters did revert the page over 3 times in one day. Tratare 06:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I dont understand, why are you attacking me here, and not talking about the nomination? This isnt the place for this, I just dont understand why you insist and making this discussion about me and not the nomination of the images. I followed all the guidelines laid out about nominating the images for deletion. I informed you, and tagged them, and now I tagged the images. Ejfetters 06:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I attacking you. You're the one who called me a vandal, when I never vandalised any of the pages. I just reverted and I didn't do so over 3 times. That's like libel where legal actions can be taken into effect, dude. I am discussing the nomination because your calling me a vandal had to do with all of this. If you're saying I am attacking you because I am expressing my irritation with you libeling me over the internet, well I have a perfect right to be angry about that. Tratare 06:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Non-free content 3.6, No. 12. "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." Ejfetters 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my initial nomination for the reason, but I do believe that someone has said on here that publicity images of that nature are inappropriate, which is the reason I have nominated so many. Can someone please shed some light on the subject, so we can get an official stance on it from an admin? Images of this one's nature for subjects such as Star Trek and Dawson's Creek were removed, so is this the same as those were? I think we need proof the image has been explicitly release for such promotional use, is this correct? Forgive me, I am not an admin but trying to become somewhat more helpful in editing non-free material to comply with policies set forth. All edits I made were in good faith, as I was told previously if I nominate an image for deletion and it's being used in the infobox to remove it and replace with one of the templates I used, if its incorrectly done, please let me know, as I don't want to make these good faith edits incorrectly if I can avoid it. Thank you. Ejfetters 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just somce constructive criticism on User Ejfetters. May I suggest that user Ejfetters learn the wikipedia policies he enforces, just before going ahead and enforcing them without having a clue about what he's talking about, as proven on my talk page. He could have saved us a lot of confusion and argument these last 8 or 9 hours. While I believe the user is truly trying to help wikipedia and has no bad intent, he causes a great deal of confusion and argument because he admittedly didn't know anything about the policy he was enforcing me about. For instance, he has just done something that he is not sure was correct so if he starts arguing with someone about it, he will just confuse them because he won't know what he's talking about. This is pretty much what has happened tonight. Ejfetters basically tells me, I cant use these images. I say 'why, it seems perfectly fine to me.' He basically said 'he didn't know why either but something similar happened to him." That really wasn't a good enough reason. I sincerely hope an adminn discusses knowing the policies he once to enforce before just trying to enforce them on people. Then administrators won't always have to get involved. He continually told me about a policy and then started telling me go ask administrators because he didn't know. Tratare 10:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that he did eventually go and find information and we learned about it together. Hes a good guy. No hard feelings :) Tratare 10:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Any admin care to comment on the deletion nomination to shed some light on the whole publicity image matter? Ejfetters 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have some experience here, and, while not an admin, I have received an offer recently to be nominated to be one. My opinion is that it is perfectly easy to create a new, free picture of the subject, and thus I don't believe this qualifies as fair use. I believe we should delete. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, well this image probably isn't the best example of what I am trying to ask, I am wondering, publicity stills of fictional characters from TV shows, like Star Trek that were erased, and replaced with screencaps. I have no problem with this being done, I am just wondering what I should quote when another user contacts me as to the problem of such a nominated image. How I understood it was the publicity tag attached for such images claims they are "released for promotional use" - but their is no evidence of this, regardless of how obvious it may seem. Is this the basis for this? Ejfetters 04:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Has this nomination been withdrawn? It still looks to me like a non-free image of a living person that could be replaced by a free image. (She doesn't appear to me to be any different "in character" or "out of character".) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I do not withdraw my nomination on the grounds of the fact that it is an image of a living person replaceable with free use, and also, that is is a publicity image from a studio, and that it in no way is an image that can't be described with words solely. Still, delete. Ejfetters 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - Also, Ejfetters wrote this a couple days ago:

Start of quote: ( *I withdraw my initial nomination for the reason, but I do believe that someone has said on here that publicity images of that nature are inappropriate, which is the reason I have nominated so many. Can someone please shed some light on the subject, so we can get an official stance on it from an admin? Images of this one's nature for subjects such as Star Trek and Dawson's Creek were removed, so is this the same as those were? I think we need proof the image has been explicitly release for such promotional use, is this correct? Forgive me, I am not an admin but trying to become somewhat more helpful in editing non-free material to comply with policies set forth. All edits I made were in good faith, as I was told previously if I nominate an image for deletion and it's being used in the infobox to remove it and replace with one of the templates I used, if its incorrectly done, please let me know, as I don't want to make these good faith edits incorrectly if I can avoid it. Thank you. Ejfetters 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC) ) End of quote. Therefore this one should be withdrawn like Simon Cowell. Thank you! Tratare 01:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My final input on this nomination, as I will await an admin's decision and abide by it, and try not to draw this out anymore. As done with countless studio publicity images, I still stand that this image should be deleted as per the following;

Wikipedia:Non-free content policy violations:
1. No free equivalent.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities.
8. Significance.
As stated, the image must meet all 10 criteria set forth, and it does not meet these 3 criteria, regardless of any other criteria it may meet. I have not posted all the text for this policy here, as it can be found at Wikipedia:Non-free content. I now rest my case and await ad admin's decisions, as all that can be said has really already been said. Thank you. Ejfetters 02:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I erased the image from the page. As this user has been annoying everyone repetitively on the issue for a very long period of time now, I am no longer interested in it. His first attempt at eliminating one of my pic was ignored by everyone and soon withdrawn, so I don't know if that is why he has changed his mind and started back up his complaining on and on about this pic. I don't know if he felt like that was a loss against me or something. But the repetitive annoying has got to stop at some point, and I'll have to be the bigger man. I am not going to entertain him any longer and I think he needs to move on. He's made comment after comment instead of letting people decide on the issue. Do what you will with the image but I have erased it from the page and won't be coming back here to read responses on this issue. Ejfetters, please stop trolling Tratare 08:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Wikisigbutton.png

Image:Wikisigbutton.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Crossmr (notify | contribs).

I think we do not need it, there is same image in commons. I know it used in many where but I'll run my bot to replacing. OsamaK 12:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This point was already raised and we decided that IAR applied and that it should be left. See the image history [6].--Crossmr 12:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's used in many where, but that's easy using bot and we do not need two same version. --{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|O sama K|O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please}}}|O sama K}} 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - bad faith nomination. JPG-GR 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What's wrong with using the version on Commons? Why do we need this here as well? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted - no compelling reason not to delete it was given here or in the edit history of the image. There may be some misunderstanding here about how Commons images work. If an image is on Commons, it automatically shows through to every Wikimedia project unless there is something on the local project blocking it. So this image is available and you can transclude it all over creation to your hearts' content just as you would if it were located here. The only reason not to move a freely licensed image to Commons is if it is appearing on the main page and so we need to protect it here. --B 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:0077.jpg

Image:0077.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 0077.jpg (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, suspected copyvio. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lrh_wii.jpg

Image:Lrh_wii.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rikkaa (notify | contribs).

Image was uploaded soley to vandalize an article and is now orphaned. Foobaz·o< 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Caitlin Ryan.jpg

Image:Caitlin Ryan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marina T. (notify | contribs).

User attached GNU Free Documentation License to image, though image clearly looks like a studio publicity shot. Copyright violation. Ejfetters 15:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image description page says "source: Degrassi free to use photos from the TV series". Uploader doesn't understand copyright. (Common mistake.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by Cascade Gonpory

Fan-made fake Pokemon (etc.) images - Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Unused.

Mike Rosoft 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Business office icons.jpg

Image:Business office icons.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mattdogs (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, probably spam (it was added by a WP:SPA), probably non-free (the site it came from says "If you want to use icons for commercial purposes,You have to pay for obtain the author's License agreement." (sic) Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]