Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 February 15

Image:Edinburgh university crest.gif

Image:Edinburgh university crest.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Beeblebrox87 (notify | contribs).

Superceded by Image:Edinburgh_university_crest.svg- Jack · talk · 13:08, Thursday, 15 February 2007

Image:Mcgill-logo-w-moto.svg

Image:Mcgill-logo-w-moto.svg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mwtoews (notify | contribs).

May infringe on copyright, reverting to Image:Mcgill-logo.png +mwtoews 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:400px-Parasol Girl astigmatism.jpg

Image:400px-Parasol Girl astigmatism.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jeremykemp (notify | contribs).

user claims cc-by-1.0, but no evidence at source page. It was originally used in Astigmatism but no longer. I consider it to be original research, should be deleted.- Iamunknown 03:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Uploader claims cc-by-1.0, the license at the source page is actually cc-by-nd-1.0. It does not qualify for speedy deletion because it was uploaded before May 2005, but because it is no longer being used in the Astigmatism article and because it is arguably original research (showing, without basis in mathematical or ophthalmalogical data, what astigmatism is like), I argue that it should be deleted. --Iamunknown 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael Netzer spoof of Time Cover.jpg

Image:Michael Netzer spoof of Time Cover.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Memicha (notify | contribs).

As a derivative work of TIME magazine, this image is subject to copyright. It could be tagged as fair use, but I consider the image itself unnecessary; indeed, in the article, it appears to have no place for "critical commentary" or "identification" purposes--it appears merely superfluous and decorative.- Iamunknown 03:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would beg the consideration of all concerned parties in my answering this proposal to delete an image that I produced myself and resides at my biography. I tread this fine line, as outlined in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, because no one who could defend the use of the image might come to know of this deletion proposal in time. The image represents a primary aspect of the biography that has no visual expression in the other mainstream art illustrating the article. It is truly neither superfluous nor merely decorative, rather illustrates the fundamental thrust of the artist's life and work, well known in the comics and entertainment worlds, as verifiable by the referenced text of the article. For the sake of this article representing the extent of Wikipedia's content expanse, the necessary proper tagging of fair use to the image is certainly preferable to its deletion. MichaelNetzer 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the fair-use rationale here, and even granting that, having the subject insisting on this as some sort of expression of his worldview brings up all sorts of POV and COI concerns -- and being an image, it is completely uneditable. Just kill it. --Calton | Talk 07:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain. The rationale for fair use is that it is a satirical work as indicated when uploaded. A Fair Use: Parody tag has been added. It was never claimed to represent a worldview and has no POV ramifications. It was produced as part of this article which received notable coverage in the comics industry press, such as this mention in a leading industry news site. As evident in the biography, referenced interviews and sources within the comics industry and entertainment world, the image is an objective and unbiased representation of the artist, his work and how he is primarily known within the comics and peripheral entertainment industries. COI allows for an such a presentation and defense of the image if truly found to be unbiased and not intending to present a POV. Perhaps the criticism of the image appearing in the article is motivated by POV considerations but its inclusion itself is certainly not. MichaelNetzer 12:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are places for parody. Wikipedia isn't one of them. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jgarfield.gif

Image:Jgarfield.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Coburnpharr04 (notify | contribs).

Obsolete, orphan —Remember the dot (t) 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mwbigtownlogo.jpg

Image:Mwbigtownlogo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jazzyjohn (notify | contribs).

As a logo, this is likely not freely licensed as the image description page. It could arguably be freely licensed under freedom of panorama, but since the image focuses solely on the corporate insignia, that is a sketchy argument. Furthermore, it is orphaned and apparently unnecessary because Montgomery Ward already has plenty of logos.- Iamunknown 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mwbigtownlogo2.jpg

Image:Mwbigtownlogo2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jazzyjohn (notify | contribs).

As a logo, this is likely not freely licensed as the image description page. It could arguably be freely licensed under freedom of panorama, but since the image focuses solely on the corporate insignia, that is a sketchy argument. Furthermore, it is orphaned and apparently unnecessary because Montgomery Ward already has plenty of logos.- Iamunknown 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Orphan, low quality —Remember the dot (t) 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heliospheric circuit.gif

Image:Heliospheric circuit.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Iantresman (notify | contribs).

~~Orphan, low quality —Remember the dot (t) 05:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Double-layer-formation.gif

Image:Double-layer-formation.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Iantresman (notify | contribs).

Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:H36-3b.gif

Image:H36-3b.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jtmichcock (notify | contribs).

Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Glow-discharge-schematic.gif

Image:Glow-discharge-schematic.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Iantresman (notify | contribs).

Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Double-layer-characteristics.gif

Image:Double-layer-characteristics.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Iantresman (notify | contribs).

Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Charged-particle-drifts.gif

Image:Charged-particle-drifts.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Iantresman (notify | contribs).

Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pinch-generalized.gif

Image:Pinch-generalized.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Iantresman (notify | contribs).

Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bennett-pinch-chart.gif

Image:Bennett-pinch-chart.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Iantresman (notify | contribs).

Obsolete, orphan. —Remember the dot (t) 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Karolina kurkova 028.jpg

Image:Karolina kurkova 028.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lauramullineaux13 (notify | contribs).

Unknown status of image — sunstar net^talk 10:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jacqueline9.jpg

Image:Jacqueline9.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lauramullineaux13 (notify | contribs).

Unknown status of image — sunstar net^talk 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christy25.jpg

Image:Christy25.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lauramullineaux13 (notify | contribs).

Unknown status of image — sunstar net^talk 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Christy40.jpg

Image:Christy40.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lauramullineaux13 (notify | contribs).

Unknown status of image — sunstar net^talk 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sttropezlspacegrrl.jpg

Image:Sttropezlspacegrrl.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lauramullineaux13 (notify | contribs).

Unknown status of image — sunstar net^talk 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nocover.gif

Image:Nocover.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by R Calvete (notify | contribs).

OR + OB by Image:Nocover.png — Alex valavanis 12:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Svidconnector-4pin.jpg

Image:Svidconnector-4pin.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Bevinsky (notify | contribs).

LQ, OR. Image has been replaced by Image:MiniDIN-4 Connector Pinout.svg. (Not an exact copy, so didn't use CSD). ↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helsinki-86 14061987.jpg

Image:Image:Helsinki-86 14061987.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by neonz (notify | contribs).

I have a VERY hard time believe this to be PD. And the page is dead, so no verification is possible anymore. — Circeus 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image orginaly camed from NSS (a.k.a. Helsinki-86 succesors), NSS page states that its content is noncommercial, however it isn't clear to me if it means that images can be used elsewhere. Latvian copyright law states that one may freely copy works for educational prupose and wikipedia is educational, though it doesn't apply to softwere (I think it means that one can not use pirate softwere in education and thus it doesn't apply to wikipedia). I think it can be considered at least fair use and kept, if you don't think so, you can e-mail NSS 15maijs AT apollo DOT lv -- Xil/talk 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The most recent copy of the page at the Wayback Machine (link here) suggests otherwise: specifically, the text, "Copyright @ 2003 NSS. All rights reserved" is at the bottom of the page. We could still technically use the image without permission under fair use, but there are still two unanswered questions: (1) is the copyright to the image owned by NSS or by an uncredited (or otherwise named but I'm unable to translate from Latvian) photographer who owns the copyright and (2) can the image be replaced? Certainly people alive today have photographs of the event, but can they be contacted and would they be willing to license their content under a free license? --Iamunknown 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No credit is given in the page you provided. The copyrights might be owned by NSS or its members as the event pictured was organised by Helsinki-86 and NSS claims that they've descended from it. The image is shot from the same angle as a film, depicting part of the event, I saw recently it might be cut out of the film, I'll wach it again to see if the author isn't credited in it. As for replacement - the event was illegal, that decreases posibility to find another image and I can't find no similar image on web with clerified copyrights. Chanses to find free Helsinki-86 image are greather, but the event depicted is very immportant -- Xil/talk 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The film is not the original sorce, I licenced image as fair use for now -- Xil/talk 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WSBLiteraryOutlaw.JPG

Image:WSBLiteraryOutlaw.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mikerussell (notify | contribs).

Low quality; book is worn and in a crooked position. Simply scanning the book cover would produce a usable image, but its current context (i.e., an article about the subject, rather than the actual book) does not qualify as fair use (though I guess that's a separate issue). Notified uploader.[1] (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cover was not scanned, it was a digital image- and is not "low quality" created by me and uploaded as a GNU image, someone besides me altered the copyright tag without contacting me, the image is a work of art created by me- whether Groghead likes it or not, the artistic aim is to make it "worn and in a crooked position" on artistic grounds, as that fits the subject and authors own writing. Maybe he should notify not the uploader but the person who changed the copyright tag, since he is compounding an error. His first error is to assume the image is scanned, his second error is assume it is unintentially slanted, the third is he failed to look at the original tag. I changed the tags on the image and left this message. --Mikerussell 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)--Mikerussell 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not assume it was scanned, I said it would look better if it were scanned instead (but that this would also present a fair use problem). I fail to understand how this fits the subject. moreover, your photograph is a derivative work, not an original one. Finally, please leave the {{IFD}} tag in place until this process has run its course. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COPY FROM USER PAGE AT Gyrofrog's request:

I laughed when you called me a wiki lawyer, when you are the one citing legal precedence over policy, and here is the precedence you are claiming, from the wikipedia page you referred me to: "However, the new work must be different from the original in order for a new copyright to apply, as the court ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation. from "derivative work.

Please change back the Copyright tag as it is not the original tag and you have subscribed to the picture as it being a cover. If you can find the cover of the book itself maybe you can argue your case better. Otherwise I will have to do it since you are biasing the assessment. You must make up your mind whether it is a book cover or a derative work and when it comes down to it, after reading the above cited quote, all that really has to be done is take another picture that clearly is a little more creative. Why not save wikipedia readers the trouble. Thanks. --Mikerussell 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've responded on your talk page, but if you have more to say about this please do so at WP:IFD. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and altered the page again with comments and hope you will return the copyright tag back. You are really shamefully violating the assume good faith policy by accussing me of "bending the book" to purposely get around the copyright. The cover represents a worn book after many years of reading, not a new book that was damaged to get around the policies of an online encyclopedia. A book is an artefact- it has a life and purpose and is similiar to an antique object. Thus you are entitled to your opinion about its artistic merits, but let me assure you, they are only yours and not privliged. --Mikerussell 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please discuss this at IFD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(New repsonse, not from Talk pages -- Gyrofrog (talk)) I did say it "comes off as Wikilawyering", but I apologize if I have acted in less than good faith. That said, my opinions about the image stand: I do not think the current image of this book adds anything to the article (nor to Wikipedia), and I think any image of this book is better suited for a Literary Outlaw article, not for William S. Burroughs. I do not claim that my opinion or position is one of privilege and that's why I brought it up here, for the community to weigh in. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COPY FROM USER PAGE AT User Mikerussell:

Mike, your photograph of the book is a derivative work. Claiming otherwise by bending the book, etc. comes off as Wikilawyering (see point #4). The copyright still applies to the photo you made, and in its currents usage this constitutes an infringement. If you wish to dispute this further, then please do so at WP:IFD rather than removing the maintenance tags from the Image. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I don't think your picture is different from the original work. I see a picture of the book, not an original creation. I have a copy of Literary Outlaw (I believe the same edition as yours) on hand, but I have already explained why I don't think a new image is a good idea. I don't think anyone should change the image tags until the IFD has run its course. I think any further discussion about saving or deleting the image is better suited for WP:IFD. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final additional comment:

I think you are missing the point, the Tag is not the one that I uploaded the image with and thus you are really skewing the debate. What you see could be better expressed if you did show us a copy of your book, and the two images were compared. I suspect if they looked similiar, then there would be a strong argument in your favor. As it stands, you are making some contradictory claims, you say you see a book cover, but then you say it is of poor quality, which leads one to believe you are wanting to see a book cover, but cannot and thus want to replace it or "correct" the image. Anyone who compares that image against other book cover images will notice what you noticed, it is really a book cover but a picture of a bok created from an individual copy with its own unique markings that express a use and intimacy with it. If your book cover looks like mine then I will gladly take your advice and pull the cover. The image may not be to your liking, and maybe better images are out there, and if the image is replaced, then so be it, but otherwise it represents a connection to the subject- Burroughs- and not about the book itself, which again seems to be part of your argument. The image depicts the subject and not the book itself. --Mikerussell 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may view my personal copy of the book here. Given the absence of a Literary Outlaw article, and the fact that my copy is also well-worn, I think it would only create a burden if I were to upload this image to Wikipedia. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks quite similiar. I think I got to stop responding to wikipedia messages while at work. I was working on a difficult problem today at work and got a 'new message' box when I was searching in an open window and I think my reaction was an outlet for the frustration I had in getting a problem fixed on a work issue. When I look at it now, I really am surprised I took such a pretensious stance. I guess I couldn't get snotty with a client, so I vented on you. Believe it or not, I don't really care if the image is deleted, as strange as that sounds. It isn't all that important and the principle behind it, although important, isn't really applicable in this particuliar case. So I almost have a total reversal feeling here and think it probably should be Deleted.

Yipes! In that case, I hope tomorrow is better. I hope I didn't get you wrapped around the wheel. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure I entirely understand the flow of the discussion, but I argue for deletion based on numerous photos of Mr. Burroughs on Flickr. Some of them unfortunately appear to be blatant copyright violations, and I'm unsure if any of them are under a free license, but we could certainly try to contact the photographers and see if they are willing to CC their image. --Iamunknown 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Centennial_logo_web.png

Image:Centennial_logo_web.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:Asidfree 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)#Image:Centennial_logo_web.png listed for deletion|Asidfree 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)]] (notify | [[Special:Contributions/Asidfree 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)|contribs]]).[reply]

Image:Centennial_logo_web.png obsoleted by Image:ONU_Centennial_logo_web.png — Asidfree 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logo was replaced with a smaller, more web friendly logo. Asidfree 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SpikeDawg.jpg

Image:SpikeDawg.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by IMISSYOU182 (notify | contribs).

Vanity; used only in now-deleted page Spike dawg — grendel|khan 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OIE nov 2006.JPG

Image:OIE nov 2006.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Kitykm (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image, plus there is no tag specified and the image seems to be a copyright violation. — Skyscraper Phoenix 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]