Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 August 21

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 August 21)
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21

Uploaded by Normanmargolus (notify | contribs). OR, a screenshot, presumably of copyrighted software BigDT 00:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Normanmargolus (notify | contribs). OR, screenshot, presumably from copyrighted software BigDT 00:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Davidlaw (notify | contribs). OR, screenshot, mistagged as PD BigDT 00:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by BojacRedleif (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 00:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Jessicawitte (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 00:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GothicScrybe (notify | contribs). OR, more of an article than an image BigDT 00:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Leasewinn (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ctpaquette (notify | contribs). OR, appears to be an album cover, in which case the tag is incorrect and this is an orphaned fair use image BigDT 01:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ctpaquette (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ctpaquette (notify | contribs). OR, UE, description page says, "all rights reserved" BigDT 01:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mickzilla (notify | contribs). OR, image of a person displaying a copyrighted poster. Adding a person to the photo doesn't make it not a derivative of a copyrighted work. Thus, this image is CV. BigDT 01:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Andrewhunter (notify | contribs). OR, "I made this image my self by scanning the covers of the first four issues of Warrior." Presumably, this is a copyrighted publication. BigDT 01:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Harryhcorbet (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 01:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Linha 2314 (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by MysticEsper (notify | contribs). Title.png - obsoleted by SRB2Title.png Logan GBA 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by The Archivist (notify | contribs). Copyrighted image obsoleted by image:UMD.jpg ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Babbinator (notify | contribs). CV. Template says owner released all rights, but there's no evidence this is the case. (Owner isn't even listed). Mgm|(talk) 08:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by AlbinoFlea (notify | contribs). OR SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Silex (notify | contribs). OR, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 12:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Silex (notify | contribs). OR, insufficient evidence to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Silex (notify | contribs). OR, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Timdosser (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 12:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Timdosser (notify | contribs). OR, looks like an album cover BigDT 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Timdosser (notify | contribs). OR, photo of a band BigDT 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Timdosser (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 12:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Brianlara (notify | contribs). OR, weird photoshop, probably a derivative of a copyrighted image BigDT 12:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Zeramu (notify | contribs). OR, "I do not actually remember where I have found it about 3 years ago." We can't know if it is free, then. BigDT 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ebey23 (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 12:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Praths (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 12:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Raid1wa (notify | contribs). OR, logo presumably for a deleted article BigDT 12:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Raid1wa (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 12:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Brett goldsmith (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Brett goldsmith (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 12:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Brett goldsmith (notify | contribs). OR, UE BigDT 12:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ottokarf (notify | contribs). OR, UE, but almost funny BigDT 12:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Pauliepaul (notify | contribs). unsourced CobaltBlueTony 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following images were uploaded by User:Snakeplane. All were taken from the Wayland Academy website virtual tour. After automated warnings from OrphanBot and a query from me regarding their contributions, user tagged some of the images (correction: uploaded new files) PD-self and blanked his/her talk page. I have since removed text copyvio contributions from the Wayland Academy article and the images are now orphaned. The academy logo was also uploaded and licensed under the GFDL, which I have re-tagged as a logo. Sulfur 16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hello Snakeplane... I'll copy your statement over to the IfD nomination for the community's consideration. Your input in that open dialog welcomed and encouraged during the process. One thing you might want to consider is that if you performed under a Work for hire basis, the copyright to those images may not be yours to license. Either way, such things should be noted on the media page to avoid future issues. As for the text taken from the Wayland Academy website, there is a notice at the bottom of every page that states it is copyright 2004-2006 Wayland Academy. If it is yours to contribute, this should also be noted in your edit summaries. Take care! Sulfur 23:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by KF (notify | contribs). This is a movie screnshot showing Demi Moore's face. It's unlikely to be helpful in any critical commentary on the movie, as the only information it conveys is the 'look' of Ms. Moore. It's currently being used in the article about the book character that Ms. Moore was portraying.- Abu Badali 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore to the Hester Prynne article, where there's a reference to the 1995 movie. Abu badali has now removed this image three times from two different articles. Also, I'm still waiting for his answer to my question on what the difference is between the use of Moore's image and the one in the Patrick Bateman article. <KF> 23:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mademoiselle Sabina (notify | contribs). TV Screenshot created (as described in the image description page) to be used on the article about the person depicted (and not about the tv program).- Abu Badali 22:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comment: The use of this image is well within the rules for TV screenshots: for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents. Image illustrates an article on one of the subjects of the competition. ie, it is being used to identify the content of the program. Mademoiselle Sabina 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the {{tv-screenshot}} template meaning. --Abu Badali 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. The subjects of the programs are being discussed. In addition, it falls under the fair use rules. There are no other images of these subjects available; most of the TV programs are from outside the US and are not under US copyright laws, and there is no reason they cannot be used. Mademoiselle Sabina 06:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These images are tv screenshot depicting living sportspeople and are being used in their biographical articles. This is not how we use {{tv-screenshot}}s. --Abu Badali 06:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. They are being used to illustrate biographical articles of living people who are depicted in these programs. They're part of the content. In addition, as I said, they fall under fair use. Do you have any official Wiki backup, other than your own opinion, that this is an inappropriate use of screenshots? I feel that you are completely misinterpreting the policy. Mademoiselle Sabina 06:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll double check with other users, and then I'll come back to you. --Abu Badali 06:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#TV_Screenshot_quick_simple_question and our folks there seem to agree with me. Would you like to rephrase the question in some other way? --Abu Badali 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really accurate. Only two users replied to you, and I was one of them. Now that I see the actual use of the images I disagree with you on them failing WP:FUC. The other user who "agreed" with you only said one word "Nope" and offered no other explanation or discussion. -- Ned Scott 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's innacurate in "seem to agree with me"? I even provided the link so that the information could be checked (including, the number of replyies i got). And you seem to accept that you indeed agreed with me there when you say "Now that I see (...) I disagree...". Also, I've posted a link there back to this ifd so that anyone interested could take part in the discussion.
It would be interesting if you could point me what important aspects of these image uses I missed in my question formulation so that it led you to agree with me. Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never agreed with you in the first place. I clearly said that there is no clear yes or no to such a question and that it depends on the availability of another image. Do not twist what I said around to meet your wishes. -- Ned Scott 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not do that Ned! Please, give me a chance. Is it too hard for you to assume that I may have misundertood you? Avoid this harsh wording towards me. --Abu Badali 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If another image of the person can't be obtained then it would qualify for fair use. However, if you wished to use this image to discuss the person in their sport, and other sport-related image of them cannot be obtained, then it would also qualify for fair use even if you had a second "free" image. Unless someone is able to provide a free alternative, these images all qualify for fair use. -- Ned Scott 10:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the TV-program is the source, but the use can be about the TV program or that which is illustrated in the TV program. (and, again, only when a free alternative is not available). -- Ned Scott 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ned, what exactly do you mean by "...another image of the person can't be obtained" and "Unless someone is able to provide a free alternative"? As far as I know, they are all living persons. It's possible to take pictures of them, or have an already existing picture to be freely licensed. But if you mean a softer interpretation of "can't be obtained", the {{tv-screenshot}} image tag should be replaced (probably) by the {{fair use in}}, followed by some (sound) fair use rationale.
Also, I fail to understand this "sport-related image" line of thought. What makes an image showing an athlete's face and shoulders specially helpfull in discussing "the person in their sport"? --Abu Badali 16:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but I don't have the money just laying around to get a plane ticket and hunt these people down to take a picture. As it stands it is physically possible to obtain free images but highly unlikely and impractical given our resources. -- Ned Scott 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's more people in this project than you and me. I, for one, live in the same city of one of the athletes depicted. And I don't believe this is a special privilege I have over every other Wikipedian.
We're not talking about creatures living in the fifth moon of Venus. They are people (athletes) from the 20th century. It's not "impractical given our resources" to produce images of them.
That's not really true. The vast majority of these athletes are no longer competing, or competed during the 1980s. One of them, Hilary Grivich (Image:Grivich.jpg) is deceased. I would imagine they value their privacy and would not be easy to locate even if one desired to do so. Therefore it really is not possible to photograph them, especially as they looked during their gymnastics careers, even if one had the money and time to fly to their native countries. For the rest, current rules at gymnastics competitions largely prohibit camera use in the arena, and prohibit amateur photographers from posting or publishing any photos they make take. Photos available online--if any (some of these athletes don't have very many photos out at all)--are generally from online magazines and are therefore unavailable for free use.
As a former competitior in this sport with connections, if there were any other images to be had, I would certainly use them and others would too. However, as Ned Scott has nicely pointed out, the use of these photos do fall under fair use, and they are appropriately used in contect. Mademoiselle Sabina 22:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm still curious about the "sport-related image" line of thought. --Abu Badali 20:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the image contributes to the bio article on the sports aspect of that person's life in a way that another image could not.. then it would pass WP:FUC even if a free non-sports picture was available. This could include showing the person's age / physical appearance at the time of sport competition. As said above, a lot of these images are from the 80s, and if one of them got really fat and old then had that recent picture taken and released as a free image.. then I could see using a second image based on a "sports-related" argument. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More image in the same conditions (and from the same uploader):
Disclaimer. I'm adding these new images here in ifd 2006 August 21, but technically, I should be adding them to ifd 2006 August 22. I just did that so that all images are treated together. If someone feels it's unfair, I can relist them. --Abu Badali 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... if the appearance of the people on the particular show is not being discussed. This is the same reasoning as not using magazine covers unless the magazine itself is being discussed. See Wikipedia_talk:Publicity photos. ed g2s • talk 10:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The athletes' performance at the events depicted is being discussed in the articles. It's also important to note that these aren't series programs, they're one-time broadcasts which might be better classified as news programs. Mademoiselle Sabina 22:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If these images are kept, it would mean that all athlete's articles would be allowed to illustrate the subject with an screenshot, which is surely not what {{tv-screenshot}} is intend to. About the impossibility to get freely released images, I found your lack of faith disturbing. I have seen many sites about this sport that mention that they use images with permission from the author, and even mention the photographers contact. See this site for instance: http://www.geocities.com/d_b_angel/ and try to contact the photographers and talk them about this marvelous thing the Wikipedia is and talk about free licenses... and kindly ask them to release some of their images under a free licensing. You'll be surprised how well this work. I have done it a few times. --Abu Badali 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • shrug* Whatever. It's not a "lack of faith," it's reality, as I said I have connections in the sport and it's not possible. I'm not going to be contributing to Wiki anymore, because I'm not going to have my hard work trashed this way. If it's so easy to get free images, as you claim, I suppose you'll be able to do it yourself with no problem and fix these articles up again. Mademoiselle Sabina 20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dismissing this as an "appearance on a tv show" is inadequate, the screencap comes from ESPN's coverage of the 1995 World Championships. Amanar's team went on to place 2nd in that competition thanks to her performance. There is a very strong fair use rationale for this image, although a caption and {{Non-free fair use in}} tag might help. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what's this "very strong fair use rationale"? The rationale given in the image description pages are always "Screen cap by Mademoiselle Sabina to illustrate the article on XXXX." Where XXXX is some athlete. The suggested fair use rationale that it's not longer possible to have free images of this athelets on their sports is too weak, as we have evidence that there are photographers from that time willing to have their images used as long as credit is given. Using screenshots is just the laziest path. --Abu Badali 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't the laziest path; it's the most realistic one. What you forget is that even though some photogs will have their images on someone's personal website, that is not the same as sending them to Wiki--which is in effect sending them public domain. I don't particularly care anymore. Your battle now. Mademoiselle Sabina 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that, whenever you contribute text to some Wikipedia article (your "hard work"), you are releasing it under a free licensing? Do you think when you do that you're "in effect sending them public domain"? Is it unrealistic that someone (you) does that? --Abu Badali 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is severely flawed. Do you understand that there is a substantial difference between what we do on Wikipedia (writing as an amateur for a public domain website) and what these photgraphers are doing (ie, taking professional photos for money)? These photographs sell to IG, the Associated Press and other news agencies for three to four figures. They're not created for the public domain and are not released into the public domain for this reason.
The only way to get public domain pictures of these gymnasts would be to a) go back in time; b) take pictures at current meets (not allowed under current rules, as I explained before); c) ressurect the two dead/missing gymnasts to take their pictures. This is my last statement on this issue. You refuse to understand any rationale anyone has presented on this issue contrary to your beliefs, so I don't believe there's any more I can say to you here. As I said before, if it's so easy to find these free photos of gymnasts, I will leave it to you. I expect you will have new photos for all these articles quickly, if in fact it's as simple as you claim. Mademoiselle Sabina 04:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPN program this screencap was taken from had a low degree of creativity; it was sports journalism, coverage of the event was by no means exclusive to ESPN. Since this is a screencap, the portion claimed for fair use is insubstantial, the usage is transformative, and (this event occured in 1995) unlikely to negatively impact the market value of the source material. If there were other, more appropriate materials widely available, then this wouldn't be an issue. But if Mademoiselle Sabina's taken on the situation is accurate, then the ESPN footage is about the best source we have. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the only reason we allow fair use is in the absence of a free alternative, and this is clearly the case. -- Ned Scott 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All deleted. Even if they were screenshots of the athletes in action during their medal-winning routines, it would still be a weak fair use argument, but considering they're just head shots and used for identifying the subject, then this is a very poor argument. A good example of a proper sports screenshot (if we had one) would be when Brandi Chastain ripped off her shirt to reveal her sports bra after scoring the winning penalty kick in the 1999 Women's World Cup final (as it stands, we have a magazine cover instead). Another example would be when Dida got hit in the head by a flare during a 2005 UEFA Champion's League match. howcheng {chat} 16:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Kenaz9 (notify | contribs). OB Image:Flag of the German Empire.svg, AU. Picaroon9288|ta co 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mesolimbo (notify | contribs). Uploader specifically states that wikipedia may not distribute the image "in or through any other medium." This, of course, is impossible; wikipedia allows all sorts of sites to mirror articles and images. Furthermore, the image lacks a detailed fair use rationale. If the uploader wants to release this imagine GFDL, that's be great. Under the current restrictions, this has to be deleted. Note that imagine was uploaded after May 19, 2005 Descendall 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that Descendall talks a lot about "good faith" but when it comes down to helping out a new user, he just gets pushy. The image has been updating to reflect the GNU license, and yet he harps on.
Comment: Note that Mesolimbo has removed the image for deletion tag from the photo. He marked this edit as minor. Good faith is becoming harder to assume. --Descendall 03:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He just did it again. Oddly, he also took the fair use tag off, making this eligable for speedy deletion. --Descendall 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, now he's taken the tag off again, and replaced with with the GFDL tag. However, he still claims that wikipedia may not distribute the picture for any purpose, in effect voiding the GFDL. This must be deleted. --Descendall 00:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So why exactly is this image still flagged for deletion? I've updated the license, removed the copyright notice, and commented here. Surely you must be done with your inquisition? --Mesolimbo 00:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. Image is now properly licensed. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Lefty (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Commons image Image:Grey icon.svg — Wwagner 00:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Nichalp (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg — Wwagner 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Commons image. Please request deletion there. howcheng {chat} 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these suffer from being overkill in this article family. We simply don't need them. I've talked with User:Blademaster313 about this. The only non-Blademaster image is Image:Mamimi3.jpg; I've contacted User:Wheatloaf about that. -Litefantastic 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by Berkut (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Java Logo.svg — Wwagner 00:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Justin Foote (notify | contribs). OR, OB. Improperly titled file. Replaced by Image:SourceoftheOrinocoRiver.jpg — Justin Foote 00:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Anoneditor (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Commons image Image:Operational transconductance amplifier symbol.svg — Wwagner 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Kwamikagami (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Pine Ridge Flag.png — Wwagner 01:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Oyvind (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Cement Production Schematic.png — Wwagner 01:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:This Img is replaced by another img & is not used in any article. Oyvind 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Img creator and uploader.[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_August_21&oldid=1138513529"