Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 April 30
April 30
edit
- - uploaded by Deankiely999 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Superwhitetrash (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright violation, Satellite image Nv8200p talk 02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Claims to be self made but appears to actually be an album cover. No prood that uploader actually made this cover. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- See http://www.myspace.com/srapallaround ~~ The uploader DID make it. That's all the prood you need. Thank you. 01:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recnet (talk • contribs)
- - uploaded by Knowledgeman800 (notify | contribs).
- LQ...use is seemingly unencyclopedic. Modor (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- OB, OP, UE. UE due to the fact it looks like an advertisement and has a "price tag" attached to it. OB, due to the fact that image Smurfsdvd.jpg is of better quality, or at least more encyclopedic and has replaced it. OP due to the fact it is no longer being used anywhere on Wikipedia. Modor (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Meh, go for it. Mrx9898 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is an obsolete image, is in JPEG format and is orphanned, uploader has left wikipedia. MrHarper (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and restore to Rockdale railway station, Sydney - the image was deleted from the page it was supposed to be on. The user who nominated this image has a history of nominating otherwise valid images for deletion and has vandalised several pages. I have just spent a good hour or two over the past couple of days fixing up his vandalism. JRG (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Hang on, the facts: The image was orphanned, not by me, is in the JPG format, had no source info and the uploader had left WP! Far from the actions of a vandal! MrHarper (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Another image of the same location has been uploaded, now this image is no longer being used Schumi555 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Image is of poor quality and low resolution. Could be any police car, does not represent the subject well at all.
Also, provides little benefit in the context it is current being used. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I took that picture in the late-1990's and that scene is from the Long Island MacArthur Airport. Just because YOU don't recognize it, doesn't mean you can justify trashing it! ----DanTD (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- DanTD, no one is saying it isn't what you say it is, only that it doesn't represent what you want it to do very well. I concur with that assessment, BUT just because it isn't a good picture doesn't mean it should just be thrown away, just that this may not be the best place for it. If you want to keep it on Wikipedia, the simple solution is to add it to your user page. No one can delete it then (since it does not violate any copyright laws). You can then argue for its merits of inclusion in the article without it being deleted (of which the police force is never even discussed...why is the picture there exactly? What does it illustrate?). If this is done, then there is no reason to delete this image, IMHO and discussion of its iclusion should be moved to the Long Island MacArthur Airport talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 19:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable enough, but even if I do move it to my userpage, I'm still concerned that it's going to be trashed. As for what it's supposed to illustrate, it was supposed to be loosely tied to the ground crew or general maitenance of the airport itself. The Long Island MacArthur Airport Police is an extension of the Town of Islip Auxillary Police force. ----DanTD (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image kept. No consensus to delete. -Nv8200p talk 00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable enough, but even if I do move it to my userpage, I'm still concerned that it's going to be trashed. As for what it's supposed to illustrate, it was supposed to be loosely tied to the ground crew or general maitenance of the airport itself. The Long Island MacArthur Airport Police is an extension of the Town of Islip Auxillary Police force. ----DanTD (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright Violation. While this image may be commissioned by a public official for an official portrait, the creator of that work does not lose the copyright status. Furthermore, the artist in question explicitly states on his website that he retains copyright status of this painting. — BQZip01 — talk 18:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- More a point of order than an objection, this image is from Commons and needs to be nominated for deletion there, not here. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- D'OH! — BQZip01 — talk 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Moot point. The image has been deleted from the commons. — BQZip01 — talk 05:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- D'OH! — BQZip01 — talk 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Caldorwards4 (notify | contribs).
- Looks like a fake cover (note that Moments is misspelled). Claims to be from Amazon.com but a search of the site turned up no image of the individual song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just a screenshot I took, issue has since been resolved Ryan4314 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just a screenshot I took, issue has since been resolved Ryan4314 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Screenshot of a film released by the US Government but this film used material not made by the US govenrment so PD-USGov is not a valid license tag. Tagged by me with a general fairuse tag but uploader - who is known for having some difficulties with understanding image licensing - constantly reverts these changes and fails to change the general tag into a usage-specific fair use tag (not my responsibility to find one and I assume even if I find one the uploader would revert me). Denniss (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- how the u.s government got a hold of that movie is irrelevant to us,all what we know is that it is owned now by the u.s government.for someone like you,i can imagine how simple things like these are hard to comprehendGrandia01 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just because the work is created by a PD government doesn't mean that it is not a derivative work of an existing non-free work not' created by a PD government. As far as I can tell, the non-government elements are still under copyright. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"As far as I can tell, the non-government elements are still under copyright." and can you please provide proof of that statement of yours mr genius??thanksGrandia01 (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image kept. The image now has a fair use tag which is correct. Although the U.S. government may not have honored the copyright of the Nazi government then. Wikipedia does honor the inheritor of the copyright (probably the current German government). Image does now need fair use rationale and I have tagged it as such. -Nv8200p talk 00:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)