Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 September 23

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 23)
< September 22 September 24 >

September 23

Uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs). Wikipedia user Morgan695 also uploaded the official Canadian Parliament photo of Tony Martin, so I thank the user for that. But there's a problem on every photo of the NDP MPs at the NDP federal convention in Quebec City that I don't like. There's some of the photos from the NDP federal convention is a summary in English and French, but this is suppose to be encyclopedia website for Wikipedia in the English language. And the photo of Tony Martin is a lot too big on this picture and it has to be deleted also as well. And I will put the official Parliament photo of Tony Martin which was uploaded on August 1, 2006 by Morgan695 to put it back into the article of Tony Martin back where it came from the article. Steam5 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As has already been explained to you we cannot use the official photos as they are under copyright. wiki Policy (and the law for that matter) cleary states that copywrited photos do not qualify for fair use when a free version is available.  YDAM TALK 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no problem with this image that warrants deletion, in my view. - Montréalais 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a Commons image, and IfD does not apply. — Wwagner 02:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We cannot use the official pictures because they are copyrighted and cannot be used under fair use since we have those images. Keep them ALL. --Deenoe 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs). I will be uploading the official Parliament photo of Catherine Bell with the Canadian Parliament copyright as soon as possible. But, there is an image problem on this one. The NDP Federal Convention of Catherine Bell is also too big on this image. I want that non-official photo to be deleted immediately. Steam5 07:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As has already been explained to you we cannot use the official photos as they are under copyright. wiki Policy (and the law for that matter) cleary states that copywrited photos do not qualify for fair use when a free version is available.  YDAM TALK 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no problem with this image that warrants deletion, in my view. - Montréalais 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a Commons image, and IfD does not apply. — Wwagner 02:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We cannot use the official pictures because they are copyrighted and cannot be used under fair use since we have those images. Keep them ALL. --Deenoe 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs). Wikipedia user Morgan695 uploaded the official Parliament photo of Chris Charlton on August 1, 2006 and I thank Morgan695 for the official Parliament photo, but now I've got a image problem on this one. This photo of Chris Charlton at the NDP federal convention is a lot too big and this image to be deleted. I'll put the Official Parliament photo of Chris Charlton on to the article where it suppose to be. Steam5 06:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As has already been explained to you we cannot use the official photos as they are under copyright. wiki Policy (and the law for that matter) cleary states that copywrited photos do not qualify for fair use when a free version is available.  YDAM TALK 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no problem with this image that warrants deletion, in my view. - Montréalais 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a Commons image, and IfD does not apply. — Wwagner 02:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We cannot use the official pictures because they are copyrighted and cannot be used under fair use since we have those images. Keep them ALL. --Deenoe 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Montrealais (notify | contribs). Wikipedia User Earl Andrew already uploaded the official Parliament photo of Libby Davies on June 3, 2005. If I put the official Parliament photo of Libby Davies back where it suppose to be, then the user Montrealais reverted back to a new non-official photo. Because this photo is too big. I want the non-official photo from the Federal convention to be deleted and then I will put the official Parliament photo on to the Wikipedia article of Libby Davies back where it is. Steam5 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As has already been explained to you we cannot use the official photos as they are under copyright. wiki Policy (and the law for that matter) cleary states that copywrited photos do not qualify for fair use when a free version is available.  YDAM TALK 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no problem with this image that warrants deletion, in my view. - Montréalais 04:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a Commons image, and IfD does not apply. — Wwagner 02:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We cannot use the official pictures because they are copyrighted and cannot be used under fair use since we have those images. Keep them ALL. --Deenoe 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Itaqallah (notify | contribs).
Reasons
    • The article where this image was found [1] doesnt mention what this image is. Contributor seems to have made his own guess. For all we know its a photoshop made from the other documents not a real artifact.
    • Who has the rights to this? We dont know.Opiner 03:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opiner claim that I have uploaded it is false. Please notify the person who has uploaded it. However it is indeed the seal. It image I have seen many times in my shops of Pakistan. It is a famous image in Pakistan. Also you could search google for it. For example [2] --- ابراهيم 03:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Youre right it was Itaqallah. Sorry I thought you added this. I notify him now.Opiner 03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this is being discussed on the talk page. there seems to be little rationale for deletion. the image is taken from a notable website which has low-res photographs of some of the artifacts up for display. the article, discussing seals stamped on letters by Muhammad, depicts what is clearly a seal which has the arabic:"Muhammad Rasul Allah"- "Muhammad, Messenger of Allah". i don't see any reasonable basis by which the image should be deleted. ITAQALLAH 10:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is very well-known all over the world in Muslim communities, and it has always been known for the "Seal of the Prophet Muhammad". TruthSpreaderTalk 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but look at it, it looks like its made of plastic! Or colored in with crayons. Youre telling me orange color was there for 1400 years? Maybe a plastic RECONSTUCTION of seal based on impressions from original seal, but definitely NOT picture of ancient artifact. SO not saying its not real ini some way, but it just CAN'T be what this file says it is, and article where it was taken from doesnt label it, or mention it at all!
And what about usage rights?Opiner 21:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think it has ever been claimed that it was the actual original. the article talks about artifacts in islamic history, including the seal. to say it is not mentioned in the article is misinformation, and to say the image is not a seal is pretty absurd. regardless of whether it is the actual preserved seal or a reconstruction (and really it is not for you to determine whether it is or not), the photograph of the picture is assumedly copyrighted, rights probably belonging to IHRF. it is however permissible to use the image under fair-use rationale under the conditions mentioned on the tag it has been given, and these are being adhered to. ITAQALLAH 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was called THE SEAL until Itaqallah changed it just now![3].Now he calls it a 'rendering' of the seal. BUT if we dont know what kind of rendering how can we know the useage rights?Could be artists rendering or photoshop, right? If so we DONT have the rights becuase its NOT an artifact but original artwork!
Anyhow if its not definitely real and we dont know who made it. Archeologists? Kids art project? The article its from doesnt say what it is and Itaqallahs changed the story once already. It shouldnt on wikipedia articles until someone can say what it really is NOT guess.Opiner 00:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you are misrepresenting the issue, deliberately or otherwise. i acknowledged that it was a rendering in august when i was working on the Muhammad as a diplomat article. attempting to show a diff where i clarify the description per our discussion on talk as a scandalous self-contradiction is entirely deceitful on your part. you clearly refuse to study the website page properly and are intent on producing a hundred questions even though you seem to acknowledge that it is a rendering of the seal. these are the only two things that matter: 1) it is a rendering of the seal used by Muhammad, as noted on the website page itself, as notable by anyone who can read arabic, and as admitted by you yourself, and 2) it is on a website which claims the rights over the photograph per its copy right notice, making it permitted for use under fair use rationale as long as its use adheres to the specific conditions. ITAQALLAH 01:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can you please cite where in the image description it ever said "THE SEAL"? or is this more misinformation? ITAQALLAH 01:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry, we need to know what it is. If I draw what I think the seal might look like with crayons then a photographer took a picture of it and retouched it with photoshop, it would be a 'rendering' of the seal, but wouldnt belong on wikipedia would it? Rendering just means you dont know and thats not enough. If this things so famous as you say why dont you go find a better source which says exactly what it is?
The version before you changed said 'Seal used to stamp letters by Muhammad.'[4] But now it turns out, Muhammad didnt use this to stamp anything did he?Opiner 01:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so now you are stating that even a drawn picture can be considered a rendering. even on this faulty premise, such an image would belong on WP, because it is a rendering of a seal as has been verified by a GFDL imprint provided for you. you yourself conceded that you believed it was a reconstruction of the seal, which shows that only a bit of sense is needed to derive from the article what the image is, and the article from where the image was obtained mentions the seal. you are totally ignoring everything that has been presented to you just to get the last word in. ITAQALLAH 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cf talk [5] (where this whole discussion should have occured in the first place) ITAQALLAH 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update: issue resolved per talk. ITAQALLAH 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. howcheng {chat} 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Sanjay ach (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Livermore temple.jpg. Fritz S. (Talk) 08:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Rklawton (notify | contribs). Reason for deletion is identity protection as a new identity protected version (Image:Childhood Obesity2.JPG) has been up-loaded and you dont need the same picture twice. Kingjamie 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is still some debate over which image should be used in the Childhood obesity article. Deleting it now would constitute an end-run around the debate. Rklawton 17:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted but since it exists on Commons, it's no big deal. howcheng {chat} 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was} all User:Wakemp images not deleted. They're of a free license and still in use. They should be replaced first if you want them deleted. howcheng {chat} 18:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by wakemp (notify | contribs).OR, OB --Wakemp 00:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on all previously CC images - This user simply removed the CC license on most of the images (some had no license at all). As CC licenses aren't revocable, I say we keep these images up as they still might be useful. Hbdragon88 01:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, forget that. Small little images that are quite bad. Hbdragon88 03:27, 24 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_September_23&oldid=1140250716"