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.
No sources. No proof for the colors of every single state. Each state needs proof for the claims that match the colors. I strongly disagree with the assertion that California is losing population. Corvus cornixtalk19:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually the image could be right..I've looked at the associated article and it appears to be talking about migration of white Americans, not the population as a whole, although this isn't clearly stated. However since the image is unsourced and if that's what they mean they should more clearly specify it, the image should go. -
Nard19:56, 6 July 2008 (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.
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.
Delete website where permission was obtained doesn't exist. Likely copyvio. Orphaned image. Without identifying information it cannot be encyclopedic.
— BQZip01 —talk20:18, 6 July 2008 (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.
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.
Delete Website does not seem to come up at all, so no way to verify info. Furthermore, the bar code at the bottom left casts even more doubt.
WP:ADVERT? If image is to be kept it needs OTRS verification.
— BQZip01 —talk20:25, 6 July 2008 (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.
Neutral on this: if I read it rightly, the fair use rationale argues that this is an extremely rare plant for which we have virtually no chance of getting a free picture. I want to say keep because of this, but I don't know if
WP:IAR is suitable here.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
A sign from
Lafayette, Ohio. Claims to be self-made, but it's either copied from an official village sign image, or a derivative work of one: a copyvio, not eligible for Creative Commons.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
A sign from
Lafayette, Ohio. Claims to be self-made, but it's either copied from an official village sign image, or a derivative work of one: a copyvio, not eligible for any free license. There's no license tag, but as it's extremely similar to
Image:PatriotCitySign1.jpg, which the uploader also claims to have made, and which has a Creative Commons license, I'm going to
assume that this was intended to have something similar.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Given its crude construction and this person's
tendency to add to this one article, it is likely that this person probably made the sign himself/herself. I'll admit it looks like a sign, but that is not evidence of a copyvio. Just because it looks like something doesn't mean it is.
— BQZip01 —talk18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
My point is as above: if the user created this image, it's a copy of someone else's work, a derivative work, which can't be claimed as the user's own creation.
Nyttend (
talk)
20:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I would agree with that case, but there is no evidence that it is a copy of anything else. My point is that this guy probably works for them and made these picts.
— BQZip01 —talk02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The picture states that David Paxton is both the subject and the creator of the picture. Seeing that he's obviously in an official ceremony, I seriously doubt that he has something set up to take the picture remotely: hence, it's a copyvio.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
But how could the subject of this picture have taken a picture of himself? In case what I wrote above was unclear, that's my point: it can't possibly be a picture taken by the uploader.
Nyttend (
talk)
12:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
It's therefore either a private photograph, or it's a picture taken from somewhere: unless it comes from a free content source (which I doubt, and which would have to be proven), it's a copyright violation now, because the rightful owner of the copyright has not given permission to have the photograph.
Nyttend (
talk)
13:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
DELETE... Nyttend get a life..you have some real serious issues.. you just know it all don't you... You were there when the photo was taken? Your right Mr. Paxton did not actually trip the shutter himself.. still his photo. I am sorry but after reading so many of your posts especially about the issues surrounding General Lafayette's name ie. "marquis", you really seem to be a person that I will never get along with. You have so much trouble believing anything you can't conceive of yourself. you are too much of a control freak for me. Not intended as a personal attack, but sheesh, why would we bother to debate this issue with you? We really don't care if you delete it or not. Less hassle then dealing with you. Well our vote is DELETE
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.
Keep, it specifically says in the article that he hates P2P programs because of this misnamings, and we thought
WP:OR didn't apply to images. It's in compliance with WP:NFCC.
ViperSnake15121:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I uploaded the image as an illustration of the fact that there are a lot of misattributed parodies in the P2P world, a claim that is referenced a published article. As such, I didn't think that providing an image illustrating a referenced claim didn't count as original research - it's not as though I made the initial claim that a lot of parodies are misattributed to Weird Al; I agree that would be original research. ~~
Gromreaper(Talk)/(Cont)02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I didn't initially see the fact that the comment was sourced. In addition, Limewire is actually GPL licensed, so I'm retagging it as free instead of fair use. I no longer have any objections to this image. -
Nard16:07, 9 July 2008 (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.
Keep - it was uploaded four days ago. Editors are free to use PD images whether or not they have a place in mainspace. —
xDanielxT/C\R22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete The given source does not have the stated image. Furthermore, the copyright warning given in the above link states specifically the image should "not be used for 'advertising or trade purposes.' The Library cannot provide further interpretation of this phrase. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply. In addition, images by individual photographers may be protected by copyright. The Library recommends that patrons obtain permission from the creator agency, the photographer or the photographer's heirs before publishing or otherwise distributing images from the collection, except as allowed under 'fair use.'" So basically this is a fair use image, and it needs to be used in such a manner that meets Wikipedia criteria or deleted.
— BQZip01 —talk02:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Very poor resolution image (.jpg). Surely must be copyrighted from somewhere due to the fact that the user does not add details to his images.
Toyotaboy95 (
talk)
07:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
How did you determine that it's copyvio? Since it's uploaded tagged as CC/GFDL, if you can prove copyvio, it's speedyable as a blatant violation. —C.Fred (
talk)
02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
See
here. I doubt the church got the image from Wikipedia, No evidence the uploader is the photographer or affiliated with the church. -
Nv8200ptalk02:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply