Uploaded by Primetime (
notify |
contribs). TThe creator of this file was permabanned for egregious copyvios. In some cases he claimed elaborate diagrams as his own work. However diagrams like this one, which is clearly his own work, indicate a very low ability to create professional graphs. That's why I'm nominating it for deletion. Two users have come to the image talk page,
Image talk:Fiat Acquisitions over Time.GIF, just to complain about how amateurish this graph appears. "LQ".
Will Beback 09:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, I don't know what the appropriate criteria for deletion are, so I don't know whether it's elligible. I only know this image is of little to no informative value and actually more confusing than anything else (abstracting from its graphic quality), so certainly it should be removed from the article, as it compromises its overall quality. I see no use for this image in articles, so it would be a permanent orphan. Perhaps this is a reason for deletion, but deleting it is not really that important to me, just making sure it doesn't appear in articles. It would also be nice if somebody could make a good graph for this topic, which should not be too hard.
Bravada,
talk - 10:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete per above
BigDT 16:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Philwelch (
notify |
contribs). Orphaned image. Uploader has banned himself indefinitely for incivility.
Dionyseus 09:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
The image is based on an attributed peer-reviewed source, where full details are provided, the authors of which include Profs.
Emil Wolf and Daniel James, who are leading experts in their field. ScienceApologist's personal view can not be verified, whereas the original diagram can. --
Iantresman 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry that the image is "based upon" a peer-reviewed source, but unfortunately as redacted here it is physically incorrect for the reasons outlined above. --
ScienceApologist 19:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
So far, it's ScienceApologist's word against a primary source. Cite sources for your argument, or retract it. Besides, why does the image need to be deleted? Surely, if indeed your argument is correct, the image can be adjusted and improved to suit? Iantresman, can you provide the cite for the article so everyone can compare notes?
Jon 12:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Darthgriz98 (
notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) A photo of an adult item in front of a computer. Occupying most of the image is the computer monitor and on that monitor is someone's IM session. Because a disproportionately large amount of this image consists of a copyrighted piece of software, I have trouble considering it to be a free image.
BigDT 16:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
What if I edit out the computer part? It's there as an informational picture, not something weird. Darthgriz98 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)reply
This problem has now been addressed and I have struck my nomination.
BigDT 12:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)reply
These images of football players are claimed to stay under fair use copyright. However note that the same bolierplate used in the images page clearly says that the images are fair use if "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information", and being these football players still alive, a free-license picture could be taken.
Uploaded by Tron X (
notify |
contribs). OR, user's only contribution, questionable PD-self tag
BigDT 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
These images were all uploaded by
User:Lymanchandler. All are orphaned, all lack context to determine an encyclopedic use.
BigDT 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Fast track (
notify |
contribs). Collage of logos of television stations, essentially amounting to a gallery of fair-use images, generally considered not to qualify for
fair use. —
Bkell (
talk) 21:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Jczup (
notify |
contribs). OR, tagged as PD because of a 100+ year age. Though the logo itself may be 100+ years old (I have no idea one way or the other) this particular representation obviously is not.
BigDT 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Jczup (
notify |
contribs). OR, also tagged as 100+ years old, also obviously not 100+ years old unless someone has a time machine
BigDT 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Jczup (
notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) Tagged as PD-self, but gives a source URL of
http://www.thetaalpha.org ... it is highly unlikely that the author is the author of this photo
BigDT 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Jczup (
notify |
contribs). OR, tagged as PD-self, but I'm assuming, based on the above images, that it is not
BigDT 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Forehand (
notify |
contribs). OR, tagged as PD, but no explanation as to why. At any rate, it is orphaned.
BigDT 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Hardas5a (
notify |
contribs). OR, no evidence that the source website has released this image under the GFDL
BigDT 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Primetime (
notify |
contribs). TThe creator of this file was permabanned for egregious copyvios. In some cases he claimed elaborate diagrams as his own work. However diagrams like this one, which is clearly his own work, indicate a very low ability to create professional graphs. That's why I'm nominating it for deletion. Two users have come to the image talk page,
Image talk:Fiat Acquisitions over Time.GIF, just to complain about how amateurish this graph appears. "LQ".
Will Beback 09:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, I don't know what the appropriate criteria for deletion are, so I don't know whether it's elligible. I only know this image is of little to no informative value and actually more confusing than anything else (abstracting from its graphic quality), so certainly it should be removed from the article, as it compromises its overall quality. I see no use for this image in articles, so it would be a permanent orphan. Perhaps this is a reason for deletion, but deleting it is not really that important to me, just making sure it doesn't appear in articles. It would also be nice if somebody could make a good graph for this topic, which should not be too hard.
Bravada,
talk - 10:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete per above
BigDT 16:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Philwelch (
notify |
contribs). Orphaned image. Uploader has banned himself indefinitely for incivility.
Dionyseus 09:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
The image is based on an attributed peer-reviewed source, where full details are provided, the authors of which include Profs.
Emil Wolf and Daniel James, who are leading experts in their field. ScienceApologist's personal view can not be verified, whereas the original diagram can. --
Iantresman 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry that the image is "based upon" a peer-reviewed source, but unfortunately as redacted here it is physically incorrect for the reasons outlined above. --
ScienceApologist 19:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
So far, it's ScienceApologist's word against a primary source. Cite sources for your argument, or retract it. Besides, why does the image need to be deleted? Surely, if indeed your argument is correct, the image can be adjusted and improved to suit? Iantresman, can you provide the cite for the article so everyone can compare notes?
Jon 12:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Darthgriz98 (
notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) A photo of an adult item in front of a computer. Occupying most of the image is the computer monitor and on that monitor is someone's IM session. Because a disproportionately large amount of this image consists of a copyrighted piece of software, I have trouble considering it to be a free image.
BigDT 16:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
What if I edit out the computer part? It's there as an informational picture, not something weird. Darthgriz98 03:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)reply
This problem has now been addressed and I have struck my nomination.
BigDT 12:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)reply
These images of football players are claimed to stay under fair use copyright. However note that the same bolierplate used in the images page clearly says that the images are fair use if "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information", and being these football players still alive, a free-license picture could be taken.
Uploaded by Tron X (
notify |
contribs). OR, user's only contribution, questionable PD-self tag
BigDT 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
These images were all uploaded by
User:Lymanchandler. All are orphaned, all lack context to determine an encyclopedic use.
BigDT 17:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Fast track (
notify |
contribs). Collage of logos of television stations, essentially amounting to a gallery of fair-use images, generally considered not to qualify for
fair use. —
Bkell (
talk) 21:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Jczup (
notify |
contribs). OR, tagged as PD because of a 100+ year age. Though the logo itself may be 100+ years old (I have no idea one way or the other) this particular representation obviously is not.
BigDT 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Jczup (
notify |
contribs). OR, also tagged as 100+ years old, also obviously not 100+ years old unless someone has a time machine
BigDT 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Jczup (
notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) Tagged as PD-self, but gives a source URL of
http://www.thetaalpha.org ... it is highly unlikely that the author is the author of this photo
BigDT 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Jczup (
notify |
contribs). OR, tagged as PD-self, but I'm assuming, based on the above images, that it is not
BigDT 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Forehand (
notify |
contribs). OR, tagged as PD, but no explanation as to why. At any rate, it is orphaned.
BigDT 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Hardas5a (
notify |
contribs). OR, no evidence that the source website has released this image under the GFDL
BigDT 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply