Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

November 4

Image:Bp-solarmodul.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by 1ne (notify | contribs). This image is a png copy of a photograph that was originally uploaded as a .jpg. JPG is a better file type for photos, delete this one. Nilfanion (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To be honest, I don't actually see any difference between the two. however, if there's a double, the .jpg should always be kept. Spawn Man 03:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thairamayan.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Deepak_gupta (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Commons version Image:Wat phra keaw ramayana fresco.jpg. howch e ng {chat} 00:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IEPFAAR-1-.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Btmccarthy17 (notify | contribs). orphaned, absent uploader, question license as summary states website name Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corporate Profile.pdf (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Duruck (notify | contribs). orphaned, absent uploader, foundationPDF-spam, duplicate Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calib gf.jpg (talk | delete)

Image was used purely for vandalism of Wyoming, New South Wales. See edits by Toddclarke (Talk/Contributions) here. Todd661 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:UMCOR hurricane.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by KHM03 (notify | contribs). Orphanded, not ensyclopedic, likely copyvio (at least no proof that UMCOR have released his banner under the LGPL license)- Sherool (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Spawn Man 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Calib gf.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Toddclarke (notify | contribs). duplicate of Image:Calib gf.jpg, also up for deletion above Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSCI0179.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Slatin (notify | contribs). Or, AB Nv8200p talk 04:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - remaining copy is a different image on Commons. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC09383.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Tesla2kdi (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 04:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC09382.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Tesla2kdi (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 04:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC08191.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Borderhopper (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC07005.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Anooppatil (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC04625.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Sami5001 (notify | contribs). OR, LQ, AB Nv8200p talk 05:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC03751 1.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Spassnase (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 05:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC03382.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Msuh24 (notify | contribs). OR, AB Nv8200p talk 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC03334.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Msuh24 (notify | contribs). OR, AB Nv8200p talk 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC03210.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Saimum (notify | contribs). OR, UE, LQ Nv8200p talk 05:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SDA quakepage.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Msikma (notify | contribs). Used to comment on the website tiself, but it is still pruely decorative. It does not contribute significantly to the text that describes it: the text stands well enough on its own, and the visitor may look at the website by clicking the external link. An image is not necessary to illustrate the paragraph. Hbdragon88 05:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you listed this for deletion. You already listed Metroid2002.png for deletion, which is the exact same kind of image, used in the exact same article in the exact same way. Admins, I suggest that you follow this discussion instead, since the situation is the same and any outcome for that image will also be the outcome here. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 08:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that the other image was deleted, despite the fact nobody paid attention to good arguments. I guess that this image should be deleted as well, then. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you ignored Howcheng's reasn for deletion. Hbdragon88 21:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cameronindoorstadium.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Jcmurphy (notify | contribs). Fails criterion 1 of official Wikipedia fair use policy: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." -- Punctured Bicycle 07:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ulikeme.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Oanabay04 (notify | contribs). Invalid fair-use since screenshot has been altered, also makes it unusable for illustrating the event -- Shell ^babelfish 08:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bmbl bridge125x125.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Bkrudy (notify | contribs). orpahned, absent uploader, questionable CV as insufficent info provided Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 14:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bmbl bridge75x75.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Bkrudy (notify | contribs). orphaned, absent uploader, questionable CV, resized duplicate Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 14:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Electronic Arts logo classic.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by ZS (notify | contribs). OB by Image:Electronic Arts historical logo.svg. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Image:Penny Flame cropped.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Olessi (notify | contribs). Obsoleted by Image:Penny flame crop.jpg -- Olessi 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have a free alternative. --Abu Badali 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FCB U19.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Kingjeff (notify | contribs). CV. Claimed to be promotional, which is not. -- Panarjedde 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearly not the case. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. I'm not the only one being harassed by Panarjedde.Check Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Attilios. Kingjeff 18:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any proof this image is promotional in the sense meant by the fair use license?--Panarjedde 18:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image is an old image and should be replace by a newer photo. Kingjeff 19:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Kingjeff (notify | contribs). CV. The guy depicted is living, so a free alternative could be taken. -- Panarjedde 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This a clear bad faith nomination as with the previous image. This is with a press release that Bayern Munich had back when they played in a tournament in India. Kingjeff 18:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is living, and a free image is possible to be taken. Did you read the license you chose for this image?--Panarjedde 19:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is it "promote their work or product in the media" as the tag says. Which is exactly what this photo is doing Kingjeff 19:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The license requires that the "image [...] has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." Can you prove it is coming from a press kit? It also says "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it", and a photo of such a guy is possible to take, right?--Panarjedde 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is his promotional photo on the team section of his website. Perfectly ok. Kingjeff 19:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really. All I see is a picture of a guy (who is living, you did not address this fact yet) and a disclaime that reads "© FC Bayern 2000-2006 All rights reserved."--Panarjedde 11:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page. I put

"http://www.fcbayern.t-com.de/media/native/live/fcb_ii_pm_0506.pdf

The photo is on page 26." It's under the summary section. It's the press kit I was talking about. Kingjeff 20:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit better. However the fair use license still requires "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;" as long as the guy is living, the image is repeatable, so it is not fair use.

You said "The license requires that the "image [...] has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit." Can you prove it is coming from a press kit?" Can you not see that this is a press kit. Here is some points that make this a press kit.

It says media information right on the first page. I believe press kits give information for the media.
A press kit has biographies of key executives, individuals, artists, etc. Well, this this shows key individuals. (IE training staff and players of the Bayern Munich 2nd Team.
A press kit has photos or other images (high resolution) of key executives, logos, products, etc. (IE. The photos of the players and coaching staff.) Kingjeff 14:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. But there is another condition, which requires the image to be "unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it". Can you comply with this requirement? I think you can't, but if you can...--Panarjedde 14:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create any image. Kingjeff 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?? We are talking about an image you uploaded. The question is: is it possible to take a picture of Andreas Ottl and release it under a free license? If the answer is yes, then this image can't be used under fair use on Wikipedia. --Panarjedde 19:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It came in a media package (The last link I provided). Is there any reason to question this? The license is probably paid for by Bayern Munich to Getty Images and Bayern Munich then put it on their website and Media Package. Kingjeff 19:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really understand you. The problem is that this guy is living, and therefore a free image of him could be taken. It does no matter if it exists, but only that it could exists. According to WP idea of fair use, such an image is to be deleted.

I'm saying somewhere along the way this image was paid for by someone to someone. Kingjeff 19:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kingjeff, we only use unfree (copyrighted) images when it's impossible to produce a free alternative. See item #1 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. --Abu Badali 22:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a free alternative. Kingjeff 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matters. If it's possible to create a free alternative, we don't use an unfree image. --Abu Badali 23:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you that this is not a possibility. Kingjeff 23:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have free images of Totti, Zidane, Ballack, Ronaldo, and many others, why it should be "not a possibility" to take a picture of this guy? Are you taking this seriously, or just fooling around? You have been asked several times to give a reason why this image is unrepeatable, you still have to provide one yet. --Panarjedde 01:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say anything about the other images. You think I'm some magician? The only free images I can get are the images from Getty Images that have the words Getty Images written across and I didn't see this specific one on Getty Images.Panarjedde, Stop Gaming the system. We both know the reason why this image is here to begin with. The real reason why this image is here is because you found the image at the Bayern Munich Junior Team article and you couldn't find anything to revert. So you decided to game the system through picking on the images on the page.Kingjeff 17:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:FU does not state that an image must immediately be replaced. It states that it should be replaced. The image can legitimately stay until someone makes an original photo. You should go read the arguments at Avoid copyright paranoia on the Meta wiki. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FU#Policy (official policy of Wikipedia):

Any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria:

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information

What about this?--Panarjedde 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really won't stop till you get your own way. Panarjedde, we both know this is a bad faith nomination. Face the fact that you couldn't find anything to revert on the Bayern Munich Junior Team. Kingjeff 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep—Regardless of whether we can or cannot attribute motivations to anyone, (this press kit on page#1) clearly identifies itself as a press kit, and thus the image is safe on wikipedia under USA copyrights on fair use.
  We use fair use all the time for books, magazines and such, so I don't know that your emphasis on possible and impossible, Abu Badali, has any merit. I'd like to see you cite something that cut and dry sans interpretative wiggle room. We all have discretionary power as editors to make reasonable decisions. Or unreasonable immature vendictive decisions, comes to that, and obviously this matter is spill-over from some of that crap.
  Idealistic policies like the impractical one's desired by the anti-property leftist anarchist GNU organization and subsequently copy-lefted by this organization really don't come into it. (Only in America, the heartland of capitalism, could this happen and be shrugged off! What a country!)
  If we as an organization wish to follow the guideline of prefering free and clear images, it is our collective choice, but in the absence of a replacement, there is nothing wrong with using this image in en.wp, whereas it would not satisfy the the commons sister projects as it clearly does satisfy US law which applies to this venue. I've been through this several times on books matters with the foundations own lawyer on similar matters.
  This is a lot of verbage and time wasted over something properly labeled, properly attributed, and correctly used
  I for one think it petty, spiteful and beyond any reasonable measure, extremely juvenile for you two to drag your disputes into others precious free time.
  Smacks of gaming the system, and bad faith by the nominator. // FrankB 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to mention the free time I lost from Panarjedde. Here this is an image that was added in good faith and is up for deletion from a bad faith nomination. I think it's about time to come to a decision. We all know Panarjedde arguements and we all know that I think this is a bad faith nomination. Lets come to a decision regarding this photo. Kingjeff 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, instead, failed to mention why this image is un-replaceable. And this, for sure, is a reason for deletion.--Panarjedde 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up late? How many times do I need to say Bad faith nomination before you get it? How many times do I need to say you're gaming the system before you get it. We've posted enough here. I'm not going to change my mind over your bad faith edits and nominations until you've shown that you've done that. Let an administrator or whoever make a decision over this for bad or for good. Kingjeff 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you consider also these bad faith nominations?

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

I am quite good at spotting Copyright Violation images, and the images you uploaded fall within this category. The fact you cannot give a good reason for keeping them shows they should go away.--Panarjedde 00:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to one administrator you're not. 01:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forget to mention a fact: that same admin ended marking the image for deletion [25]. Try again.--Panarjedde 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes. But I still think he was correct and I'm assuming that he thinks was a bad faith nomination too. Kingjeff 01:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image. Not only is the guy still alive, he makes regular appearances in front of large crowds. If you want a picture of him, take a camera to a game sometime. --Carnildo 07:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:029Equilibre Hable-sketch.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Mmcginnis (notify | contribs). OR, UE. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Nilfanion (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]