- Delete. Although I was a bit confused between this image and the image that is now on Vinyl until I read the article, I believe that the other one is, not only is better quality, but more accurately reflects the subject. Harryboyles 06:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Looseattachment ( notify | contribs).
- Obsolete: This image is the same as Image:Bt3.jpg.
- Orphaned: This image is not in use because of the above mentioned reason. — -- Reaper X 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Orphaned per Reaper X. Has no copyright tag. I also have notified the user. Harryboyles 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- free-use image already available at Image:Arsene_Wenger.JPG. — Xiner ( talk, email) 02:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - image has uncertain copyright status, made redundant by freely-licensed Image:Arsene Wenger.JPG. Qwghlm 08:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- duplicate of Wenger.gif, same reasoning. Also listing Image:Arsene.gif for the same reason. — Xiner ( talk, email) 03:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all three for not passing WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've had at least three debates with User:Thedemonhog about fair use photos on pages for characters from Lost (TV show). In each one Thedemonhog wanted to use promo pictures over screen shots, where the promo shots were hardly representative of the character, pretty much blowing any fair use claim on the copyrighted image. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost#Character images, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 November 27#Image:Anamich.jpg for the two past situations where others found that using the promo images was not desired. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC) — Ned Scott 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I've watch the series, and this photo certainly doesn't convey Kate's character. Xiner ( talk, email) 05:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the "promotional" revisions, I do think Ned's revision should be kept however. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I realize that it will be deleted along with the rest of previously used season promos, but I'm not going to support that with my vote. -- thedemonhog 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by WD RIK NEW ( notify | contribs).
- "Two Curve Bell.jpg - obsoleted by Two Curve Bell with Jobs.jpg" — futurebird 05:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
In Social Consequences by Gottfredson, the source for this image the bell curves are used to make inferences about job potential and other factors. This is the only reason the curves are made the same size even though the populations are different sizes. I have created a new version of this graphic because I felt that this version did not correctly reflect the intention of the source. It displays sensitive data in a shoddy manner without any context.
This old version is not appropriate since it takes the information out of context and it is also not true the source. futurebird 05:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Gottfredson's curves are rather roughly drawn, as is this approximation of those curves that I'm asking to be deleted. This roughness is acceptable only because of the rough ideas she's trying to convey using this graph. It's more of a diagram than a graph, when you think about it. Moreover, this type of graph represents a certain kind of POV. Without the labels it could be misinterpreted to be an exact presentation of IQ scores. It is not an exact representation of IQ scores, it's a part of a thesis on the implications of the gap in a social context. Taking it out of context and removing the labels makes it seem more scientific than it really is.
On the wikipedia we favor more information over less. Removing the labels removes important information about the way the graph was made to further a POV on this topic by obscuring the nature of the kind of discourse this graph was designed to promote. futurebird 05:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with keeping new version and deleting old version - old version omits information. -- JereKrischel 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- String Delete- When I first saw this new graph with the "jobs" I did not like it. But, now I can see how it is better to "include more information" rather than hiding things just because some people will find them offensive. The labels help me to understand where the person who made this graph is coming from. It gives it CONTEXT. I think that is incredibly important with a topic like "Race and intelligence" since that's where this image will go in the end. So, this image without the "jobs" must go. The image should always have the "jobs" on it. That's what the woman who created it is trying to say with it. We can't change it just because we're embarrassed for her. JJJamal 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Very strong agreement with keeping new version and deleting old version. Wikipedia should provide as much information as possible and allow readers to draw their own conclusion. Iseebias
- delete oldversion is oversimplified. Muntuwandi 06:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/remove old version. Even with the new version, the only reason to display it would be to illustrate Gottfredson's hypotheses. So, those crude simplifications reflected in the image should be pointed out in its caption. --- Sluzzelin 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Where the hell is this being used? Never mind. I don't wanna know. Looks like a graphic illustration of the mind of an old math teacher (obese, built like a boxcar, hairy with a moustache) in high school who pulled me aside and asked me if my mom (a teacher, later administrator, who graduated college at 19), would clean her house, or could suggest anyone who could ('cuz all colored women did domestic work, right) -- and then later tried to advise me against attending college. WTF? If we're not going to just blow the sucKKKah up (both of them), then the new version -- by all means. deeceevoice 07:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - futurebird's presentation of this subject and seemingly her understanding of it is inaccurate and biased towards a fringe POV. more importantly, there's nothing about either image that actually merits deletion. which of the two should be used in any particular article at any particular location is a matter of article construction. nothing about the images themselves is a problem for WP policy. don't try to circumvent discussion by calling for straw polls to delete material you don't like. -- W.R.N. 08:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep new version and delete old version but move "Training potential" and "Career potential" closer to the left and align them properly (and maybe use different font/fontsize), otherwise it looks as if IQ 55 is the one with the career potential. SecurID 13:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll make that change now. futurebird 15:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree to keep new version and delete old version as the removal of the labels alter the meaning and intention of the graph. Optimale Gu 17:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with keeping new version and deleting old version for same reasons others have cited: old version omits information. Theangryblackwoman 18:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
comment using one version or another in any particular article is context dependent and not an issue for IFD. there's nothing "wrong" with either image in themselves, and neither can directly substitute for the other in all contexts. -- W.R.N. 21:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep both - the two bells are different. They give different information to readers. If one says the old is "superceded" by the new, then all but one curve bells concerning intelligence among races should be deleted. -- Der yck C. 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Image kept - Nv8200p talk 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic, plus studio portrait photo copyright usually is not released to the customer. -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 08:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Likely a school photo. Also, not used in any article. — ERcheck ( talk) 15:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. OR; the article in the link doesn't exist. Quite probably unencyclopedic. -- Der yck C. 13:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Information, I do have that photo in my userpage. It is not a school photo nor a studio portrait... Tony16 05:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If the copyright status is OK, then I'm all for keeping it. It's a userspace photo and thus there are less restrictions. However, the issue of copyright is one, I'm not sure of. One point I noted is that you, Tony, are technically not the creator of the photo, the photo studio is and thus has copyright if I am right. Harryboyles 10:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
User:Tony16 has been indefinitely blocked and his userpage deleted based on
WP:CHILD. —
ERcheck (
talk)
00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Image deleted per the indefblock of Asher Heimermann and the fact that he's underage.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
User:Tony16 has been indefinitely blocked and his userpage deleted based on
WP:CHILD. —
ERcheck (
talk)
00:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment On the image description page, the user has stated that it is a GFDL image, however there is no tag. Im have not put the tag on myself because I believe the uploaded should confirm this his/herself. I have stated this on the user's talk page. Harryboyles 10:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (signed a few hours after I posted)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delele The user replaced the page contents with the {{ ifd}} tag within four minutes after uploading the image. Harryboyles 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete User uploaded a new version of this image under public domain to the Commons, making it obsolete. Harryboyles 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Original IFD was listed by uploader, who stated that the image was superceded by Image:RIOJA-2-route.png. I've checked the latter image and I believe that the latter is really a revision of the old image. -- Der yck C. 13:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Latter is a better version of the nominated image. Harryboyles 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Lower quality file format. Superseded by PNG version created by UserPNG crusade bot. Harryboyles 06:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Image listed by anon. user without explanation given. Since the original image is tagged and not orphaned, an incomplete IFD is not strong enough put the image to deletion. -- Der yck C. 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Michaelsanders 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader (incorrectly) nominated it for deletion. Harryboyles 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Image History: The original uploader uploaded it with the deprecated tag {{ PD}}. User:TeunSpaans nominated it for deletion, stating that "Maxfield died in 1966, less than 70 years ago, so copyright has not expeired". The uploader then changed the PD tag to {{ PD-US}}. Harryboyles 08:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Screenshot of a Wikipedia article on "Nikkipedia" before it was deleted (twice) based on nonsense reasons. No copyright info. Harryboyles 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Australian Matt ( notify | contribs).
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete: could be a fair use image; but since it is orphaned there's no real purpose for keeping. -- Der yck C. 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no article for it, therefore no defense for its keeping. Harryboyles 08:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - suspected CV. -- Der yck C. 13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Mkinney2006 ( notify | contribs).
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. -- BJBot 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep for two reasons:
- The image is not orphaned. It serves useful information for the article.
- The original IFD listing was incomplete and the nominator gave no supporting argument. -- Der yck C. 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Todd Airola ( notify | contribs).
- orphaned, absent uploader- Metros232 15:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- OB ( Image:Indiana 4.svg), OR, LQ V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Another image: Image:IN003.gif, same reasons above V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Image:IN008.gif same reasons V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Obsoleted by Image:Animated glider emblem.gif. Uploader seems to agree; see User talk:Sverdrup#New glider image. — Quuxplusone 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by DeathToAll ( notify | contribs).
- Obsoleted by Image:Glider.svg and Image:Hacker Emblem.png. — Quuxplusone 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Harryboyles 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
