Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 March 22
March 22
edit- Flesh-n-Bone (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sennen_goroshi (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Concerns relating to copyright and privacy. PhilKnight (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- BLP is not really an issue with this image, it is an image taken in a public place and does not even mention the name of the person.The image is really important for this article, as the article is as much about the photo as it is about the actual incident. The image is available online, there are no other suitable free images, and it is not going to prevent the copyright holder from financial benefit. It should stay. Privacy is not an issue here, she has no right to expect privacy on train.Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- BLP is clearly issued with this photo. The girl in the picture has been identified in South Korea and I read several articles that she has undergone a very hard time due to the non-permitted photo. She has not even been charged of anything but got public humiliation. It doesn't matter whether the copyright holder released the image free, because the image still can breach the violation of privacy and he or she can be sued by the subject. --Appletrees (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so familiar with BLP, so I will give my opinion and see what people make of it, and go along with whatever action is taken. Her name is not given, the image is easily available online, if she had any bad experiences that is because of her actions, not because of her photo. It is not just a photo of the person in question, but it is a photo of the incident that the article refers to. I don't know about the law in South Korea, but it seems Florida law is important here, can someone take legal action in Florida due to the publication of the image? In the spirit of compromise, I would be willing to agree to a censored version of the image, but to me the ideal solution is to keep the image, in its original intact state. There are no other similar images avaiable that would be suitable, the image is reasonably low resolution and it is not preventing anyone from gaining financially from the image.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because the main server of English Wikipedia is located in Florida? No, she is Korean protected under the law of South Korea and you don't know anything about the copyright status: who the photographer is and what copyright he or she released. It was originally uploaded to Dcinside, a big internet forum and the copyright holder can be identified with his/her ip address. You said she derseves the public humiliation due to her conduct, but in South Korea, even photo of convicted serial killers are not allowed to circule in media. Their faces are not revealed for privacy reason. The copyrightholder clearly violated the defamation and privacy issue regardless there is no law sue on him or her. --Appletrees (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that according to BLP the law in Florida was what people go by? Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
No offence, but I don't really care about the law in South Korea, infact neither do I care about the law in my country, when it comes to wikipedia articles, BLP states the law in Florida is important, so that is what I care about. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, you want to take a risk of lawsuit on you? Fine. You must read this example of $ 350,000 settlement money on the similar situation in California State. Star_Wars_Kid#Lawsuit. --Appletrees (talk)
- Now I am confused, if there were copyright issues, and if it was illegal to reveal the faces of people in publications, then why does the Korean newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, have the pictures on their website, in full uncensored glory? http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200507/200507080017.html
surely if it was a breach of copyright and against the law to show the images, then a major Korean newspaper would not be showing the images. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- The newspaper also violates the law clearly. However, the image in the English version of the paper by an anonymous editor with no evidence that the writer is 'reliable' seems to avoid a possible lawsuit, a common tactic. Besides, the small and blurred image is is not comparable with the big image with a high resolution. Moreover, the article says that the incident of revealing her face over the web is a "crime".--Appletrees (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, my eyes must be playing tricks on me, I cannot seem to find the part in that article where they say it was a criminal act to reveal her face, could you point it out for me, please? If the law is so strict, I would not imagine the newspaper could get away with it, just by publishing it in their English language version, and to be honest, if such things were illegal in South Korea, do you think that a major newspaper would take the risk and publish the image? I think if the Chosun Ilbo can show the image, then so can wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read the last paragraph in the web article. Well, I've read many Korean articles regarding the incident, but either the photo is not published in the articles or at least her face is cropped or some black masking tape is put on her face. She quit her college because of the incident. Besides, even if Chosun Ilbo has a right to publish the photo, that does not mean that uploading the image without copyright status and violation on privacy are not justified in English Wikipedia.--Appletrees (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
WTF?...the article quotes someone as saying "We need more accurate analysis of the multitude of crimes that happen on the Internet" they most certainly did not state that showing her picture was a crime. It would be a little ironic if a newspaper reported that showing someones face was a crime, and in the same article they showed the image that was supposedly against the law to show. The newspaper has the right under fair use, the photo is the story, the girl is not the story. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. I once saw you lecturing of 'WTF' to someone, so please change it with an acceptable wording to express your feeling. Well, the mention of "crime" is not clear, but implies enough that the act is a crime. The article is more about the story of "her" act and after internet exposure. --
They dont imply anything of the sort. And I am sorry if WTF offends you, perhaps you should blame these people? http://www.wtf.org/ Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stop the unfunny joking and don't initiate a drama. You're evading your civility issue. You must try to find meaning in the 'context'--Appletrees (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, instead of turning this whole thing into a waste of time, perhaps it would be wise to wait for someone else to comment on the issue, as we dont seem to be making any progress. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- This dispute reminds me of the edit warring around Dokdo images last year. You're doing exactly opposite behaviors. Anyways, South Korean law does not allow any fair use. --Appletrees (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't wish this to sound rude, however I don't care what Korean law does and does not allow. It is not relevant to this issue. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is a relevant issue, so you should care it. Why don't you post this matter to get more opinion? --Appletrees (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't wish this to sound rude, however I don't care what Korean law does and does not allow. It is not relevant to this issue. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it relevant? and I cant really be bothered to get more opinions right now, as I am sorta sleepy. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- -_-;;; I said enough reasons already, please go to bed and have a good dream. --Appletrees (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it relevant? and I cant really be bothered to get more opinions right now, as I am sorta sleepy. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- BLP issues aside, this image lacks information about the source and the copyright holder, both of which are compulsory for fair use images. PC78 (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- "photo" claimed as 'self' appears to be photoshopped (c) image SkierRMH (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Project FMF (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Obsolete - The image has been replaced by a better version. Image:Dance Dance Revolution Hottest Party all cover art.png --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shailaquarious85 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research in inappropriate format (PDF). Hut 8.5 11:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Duplicate of information in Shivani, Tarikere in inappropriate format (PDF). Hut 8.5 11:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Murad store (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Unencyclopedic original research traffic survey. Hut 8.5 11:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Jstarinchak (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Unencyclopedic campaign leaflet. Hut 8.5 11:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Copy of doctoral thesis = original research, Orphaned, Absent uploader, possible Copyright violation MER-C 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Copy of doctoral thesis = original research, Orphaned, Absent uploader, possible Copyright violation MER-C 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- The whole upload history of Farzana Panhwar is OR copyright violation stuff (looking rather like school work actually and using WP as a host). Given that none of it is in current use (possibly never has been) and the authoir has done nothing on WP except upload thema ll last year it meets speediable criteria and I have zapped the lot. --AlisonW (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personal essay, Orphaned, Absent uploader MER-C 11:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, CV, OR, AB. MER-C 11:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personal essay, Orphaned, Absent uploader MER-C 11:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 11:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Original research/Unencyclopedic personal essay, Orphaned, Absent uploader MER-C 11:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 12:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 12:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Farzana Panhwar (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, copyright violation Hut 8.5 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shih-Lian_Huang (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Original research, Orphaned, Absent uploader MER-C 12:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Spam, Copyright violation, Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic MER-C 12:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Spam, Copyright violation, Orphaned, Absent uploader MER-C 12:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Gsustudent (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Spam, suspected CV, OR, AB MER-C 12:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Shanmukhan (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Not English, no effective description => Orphaned Unencyclopedic Absent uploader\ MER-C 12:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guerilla In Tha Mist (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- This album cover is the same as the original with the only difference being the colour. Fails WP:NFCC #8. Spellcast (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Spam, suspected Copyright violation, Orphaned, Absent uploader MER-C 12:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Padamstbank (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Spam, suspected Copyright violation, Orphaned, Absent uploader MER-C 12:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- KevinC2125 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- This album cover is the same as the original with the only difference being the colour. Fails WP:NFCC #8. Spellcast (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Karinspencer (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- No content, Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader MER-C 12:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- This alternative album cover is very similar and redundant to the original. Fails WP:NFCC #8. Spellcast (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- This alternative album is very similar and redundant to the original. Fails WP:NFCC #8. Spellcast (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Spam, suspected Copyright violation, Orphaned MER-C 12:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Daniil Maslyuk (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- This alternate album cover is virtually the same as the original with the only major difference being the colour. Fails WP:NFCC #8. Spellcast (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Annemarie_Nunnerley (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Aparenty a home made CD cover, most likely not ensyclopedic and not used anywhere in any case. Sherool (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Unused user photo. Sherool (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)