Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 13

< August 12	August 14 >

August 13

File:Donnajoe love.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio from http://esckaz.com/2005/ire.htm -Nard 01:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio, but there is no evidence to suggest the image belongs to this site, in fact other images are clearly still from the BBC. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 05:02, 13 August 2010 (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.

File:NYPost61659.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) "The image is used for educational and informational purposes to show a significant event." - the image, in my opinion, merely sums up the section of the George Reeves article it is used in (i.e. that Reeves killed himself).

2) "which could not practically be conveyed by words alone" - It has no educational value and provides no further information than the text itself.

3) "Any substitute... would fail to convey the meaning intended" - a simple graphic with the words "George Reeves Commits Suicide" would almost certainly be deleted through an XfD, yet it would serve exactly the same purpose as this image.

4) The image may be historically significant in that it illustrates the front page of a newspaper from long ago but it's use does not in any way illustrate a historic event.

5) Superman curse has been nominated for deletion, however this image has nothing to do with this curse and is not used to specifically illustrate the George Reeves section of this article, in which case it may (but probably wouldn't) be acceptable. tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 04:55, 13 August 2010 (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.

File:SpringPeople-Logo.png

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation 122.167.22.45 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2010 (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.

File:Everything Everywhere logo.png

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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo has changed. Cannot find vector or PNG version of new logo. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 12:37, 13 August 2010 (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.

File:Python logo.svg

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: Speedy delete —fetch ·comms 03:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary duplicate of Commons:File:Python logo.svg. Quibik (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (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.

File:Userbox-snitch.jpg

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: Keep and Rename. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic soapboxing -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Triton_Rocker&diff=378723270&oldid=378718550 SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete similar already deleted in TfD, just being used to goad other editors that Triton has a problem with. Mo ainm~Talk 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, should have linked to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 3#Template:Too-many-snitches myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just about to post that link you beat me to it :)Mo ainm~Talk 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this image is being used to harass and is counter to Wikipedia policies, is divisive and works against building an encyclopedia. The userbox that used it was deleted as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_3#Template:Too-many-snitches and the image is now being used on its own as a substitute for the deleted userbox. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This probably should have been speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8 (image exception notwithstanding) when the associated userbox was deleted. –xeno^talk 15:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was upload for a userbox which I was very happy with.

It raised the very serious issue of how "snitching" --- by which I mean deliberate and malicious snooping and jockeying to support an editing agenda rather than genuine investigation and reporting --- was bad for the goodwill of the Wikipedian community.

I cannot see why such a issue is either not worthy of concern or forbidden from being raised and discussed. It seems to be outrageous censorship and interference over others. I cannot see how this is any more or less unsuitable that 1,000 of other user's graphics, and especially photographs.

I am being sincere. If I can upload a picture of myself masturbating to illustrate that, why cannot I not use an entirely innocent graphic to illustrate an even more damaging practise?

If anyone can inform me of the right forum in which I can raise the issue for proper discussion, then please tell me. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox was deleted, any recreation of it in the form of a hard-coded instance using this image would mean the page (in this case, your userpage) would be deleteable via WP:CSD#G4 and salting if you decided to continue to recreate it. Also, aren't long-noses indicative of lying, not snitching? –xeno^talk 16:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete Serves not purpose other that to wind-up other editors which goes against the spirit of this community. Bjmullan (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename While the motives for creation are not worthy of praise, I actually find the image aesthetically pleasing. I have therefore tried to find an "encyclopedic" use for the image. Ironically TR's actions may be viewed as Cutting off the nose to spite the face and that is where the image should reside. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename is an intresting option. I support it, though the user in question may still try to reuse the image in some unhelpful way. That said, he may well create another image (assuming in good faith that he actually created this one) to make his point if this one is deleted. At this point, it's up to the user to chose his own behavior. If he's happy with the image being used for other purposes (assuming his approval is needed under the license), then we should keep it. If his unconstructive behavior continues, then we should pursue sanctions at an appropriate place such as ANI. - BilCat

(talk) 16:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is fine. I can accept that. I might even be able to offer a larger resolution for the project. I think it is a brilliant, positive solution.

I apologise for having to state it but it is worth pointing out that Bjmullan, above, is working in tandem with HighKing (talk · contribs) (who proposed the userbox deletion twice) and his campaign to remove the term British Isles from the Wikipedia. It is personally motivated. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth pointing out the Triton Rocker has already been banned twice for disruption and was using the image as a way at getting back at people who he felt told on him. Take responsibility for your own actions don't blame others, that what I tell my kids anyway. Bjmullan (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To Triton: Bad behavior is still bad, no matter who reported it and why. Wikipedia is self-policed, which means every user has the right and even obligation to report bad behavior. You have that same right, but reposrting on people who you have been in conflict with would be looked at suspiciuosly. The same applies to Bj and HK, but in this case, they were right. My advice is to let it go, and work on other areas of WP that interest you. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the British Isles issue, isn't it time to rename the Irish Sea too? - BilCat (talk)

Well the purely geographic term, German Sea, got renamed for a political reason - guess us Brits aren't as magnanimous as we like to think we are. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This user is showing no signs of learning from a series of bans and should not be encouraged in this sort of petty minded behaviour --Snowded ^TALK 23:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not address the image in any way. We are here to discuss the image, not the user. Please see WP:ADHOM and start an RFC/U or some similar process if you wish to attack the user. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cutting off the nose to spite the face is on my watchlist and the use of this image there seems quite reasonable. Those who wish to delete the image seem to have some personal vendetta with the user that created it. The image does not, in itself, seem to represent any particular person and so such associations are imaginary and fanciful. This is not a valid reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - no longer used on userbox, and bad behavior should be addressed directly with user. This image, however, is now in use and useful for the encyclopedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Regardless of the problems originally associated with this image, it's under a free license and currently being quite useful in an article. This could be useful at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Wonderful work in finding an encyclopedic use for this image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I have been persuaded by the above argument and have changed my vote (can I?) Bjmullan (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a possible BLP issue here -- is that a profile of George W. Bush? If so, showing him with a Pinocchio-sized nose would not be a good thing... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2010 (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.

File:Reliance & Shamrock III.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons file with same name is higher quality. Nuttyrave (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is little more than an extended case of F8, since there's no benefit to having a smaller and uncropped image. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2010 (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.

File:Reliance & Shamrock III at Starting Line.jpg

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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons file with the same name has higher quality. Nuttyrave (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is little more than an extended case of F8, since there's no benefit to having a smaller and uncropped image. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2010 (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.

File:TheViewCurrent.jpg

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: deleted

a Fair use image that has effectively been replaced by File:Barack Obama guests on The View.jpg, a PD-USGOV image. This image is being used to identify the current panelists, which the new PD image also does. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Matthewedwards : Chat 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proposed replacement picture shows the new set that started with season 13. The picture in question shows the season 10-12 set and is the only image in the article that show a set between the original 'soap opera' set and the latest set. Perhaps it should be kept and used for the purpose of showing set changes over the years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.120.70.119 (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2010 (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.

File:VanKoughnet of Colmar.JPG

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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comes from the uploader's "private collection" and as such it appears he tagged it pd-self. I doubt he created it; in fact it may (or may not) be related to Philip VanKoughnet. Has been uploaded for a bit and has not yet been used. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (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.