I have been asked by photographer Chris Paulhamus to delete the three archived photos of his that are named ILSX 1392.jpg. Two were uploaded 13 September 2006 by
Bnsfspaz_gf and
Mwmnp and the third was mistakenly uploaded 21 October 2006 by
Mwmnp.
Mwmnp 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Paulhamus' version has been deleted from the file history.
User:Bnsfspaz gf's version was not deleted. howcheng {
chat} 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I have been asked by photographer Chris Paulhamus to delete the archived photo of his named ILSX 1019.jpg that was uploaded 13 September 2006 by
Bnsfspaz_gf.
Mwmnp 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - while it is not an orphan as such (it is linked to at
Wikipedia:Wikifun/Round 12, in three sections), it is no longer (and has never been) greatly useful. --
Ravn 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep obviously. Encyclopedic image and there is an article to use it. --
Irpen 15:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep this and all other free images that happen to be orphaned. Gay Cdn, you really need to learn how to organize, in other ways than just deletion.
DVD+
R/W 17:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, I uploaded it to the Commons, put it in a cat about the bridge and added a Commonscat link to the subject's article on en:. I didn't mean to sound harsh (I've deleted plenty of images myself), but it just seems like it takes as much work to delete anything as it does to organize for use maybe later. I don't really think OR (orphan not Oregon or original research) alone is enough except for maybe ORFU. Who knows though.
DVD+
R/W 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete It is an orphan and of no use to Wikipedia unless it is linked to an article. If you want to keep orphan images, then you link them to appropriate articles or move them to the Commons. Don't expect someone else to do it for you. Kudos to
Gay Cdn for tagging this junk. -
Nv8200ptalk 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep or Move to Commons this and all encylopedic freely-licensed images. Adding the image to the appropriate article is always an option. Obvious exceptions apply (better version available, etc.). --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Optimale (notify |
contribs). Bookcover. The book is not discussed in
the article where this image is used (merely listed in the ==Books== section), and therefore it fails #8 of the fair use criteria. --
88.134.44.127 15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
This photo is quite often reproduced in books about the putsch and could be placed into
Beer Hall Putsch (no pics so far).
Pavel Vozenilek 00:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
obvious keep, proper image that is very usable in encyclopedia. --
Irpen 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - given the copyright tag on the image itself, one wonders if the image is tagged correctly as public domain.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.) 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete It is an orphan and of no use to Wikipedia unless it is linked to an article. -
Nv8200ptalk 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
obvious keep, proper image that is very usable in encyclopedia. --
Irpen 15:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - given the copyright tag on the image itself, one wonders if the image is tagged correctly as public domain.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.) 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete It is an orphan and of no use to Wikipedia unless it is linked to an article. -
Nv8200ptalk 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete While the original work of art is public domain, and subsequent exact photographic reproduction may qualify as non-copyrightable, this image is watermarked with the source. That makes it not an exact photographic reproduction which doesn't qualify for fair use.
CMacMillan 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
keep until discussion is over. This map is not used in the main article. This is used only the discussion whether or not Baekje had controlled the coast side of the current China at 4th century. So, it should be kept until the discussion is over. After discussion is over, and the discussion can be accepted to added the fact that Baekje had controlled the area, it cannot be removed. Otherwise, it should be removed.
In addition, you must provide why this map is exaggerated based on the historical records or historical evidence before deletion.
comment: Hairwizard91 must be trying to rewrite history, because his map image contradicts the information in the
Baekje article. That the Baekje's power extended into Southern China, Japan, Taiwan, and Northern Phillipines are completely false. And nowhere in the discussions does anybody even claim that. So the apparent source of the map must be
Breathejustice and his aforementioned map images. If anybody can provide any sources for the extent of Baekje's power, please do so. As of now, this map fails
WP:V. Also, as the image is not in any main article, it is orphaned.--
Endroit 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong delete This is just another ridiculous map exaggerating the kingdom's influence. If the author is trying to make a point he/she can use imageshack like the rest of us - wikipedia is not a free data storage facility. If it is to be used in an article, it is unrepresentative of what things were really like. Either way it should be deleted.
John Smith's 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. This is utterly ludicrous. Baekje did not control Taiwan, the east coast of China, Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu, and Luzon. --
ran (
talk) 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete as utter nonsense and a complete fabrication. ···
日本穣? ·
TalktoNihonjoe 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete total fabrication of history.
Abstrakt 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
keepThis is an ambiguous part of history, for Chinese records DOES mention Baekje being around Shandung and other such Chinese area. It's not a total fabrication of history, just an exaggeration based on some ambiguous records that needs to be solved first.
I have been asked by photographer Chris Paulhamus to delete the three archived photos of his that are named ILSX 1392.jpg. Two were uploaded 13 September 2006 by
Bnsfspaz_gf and
Mwmnp and the third was mistakenly uploaded 21 October 2006 by
Mwmnp.
Mwmnp 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Paulhamus' version has been deleted from the file history.
User:Bnsfspaz gf's version was not deleted. howcheng {
chat} 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I have been asked by photographer Chris Paulhamus to delete the archived photo of his named ILSX 1019.jpg that was uploaded 13 September 2006 by
Bnsfspaz_gf.
Mwmnp 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - while it is not an orphan as such (it is linked to at
Wikipedia:Wikifun/Round 12, in three sections), it is no longer (and has never been) greatly useful. --
Ravn 13:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep obviously. Encyclopedic image and there is an article to use it. --
Irpen 15:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep this and all other free images that happen to be orphaned. Gay Cdn, you really need to learn how to organize, in other ways than just deletion.
DVD+
R/W 17:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, I uploaded it to the Commons, put it in a cat about the bridge and added a Commonscat link to the subject's article on en:. I didn't mean to sound harsh (I've deleted plenty of images myself), but it just seems like it takes as much work to delete anything as it does to organize for use maybe later. I don't really think OR (orphan not Oregon or original research) alone is enough except for maybe ORFU. Who knows though.
DVD+
R/W 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete It is an orphan and of no use to Wikipedia unless it is linked to an article. If you want to keep orphan images, then you link them to appropriate articles or move them to the Commons. Don't expect someone else to do it for you. Kudos to
Gay Cdn for tagging this junk. -
Nv8200ptalk 18:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep or Move to Commons this and all encylopedic freely-licensed images. Adding the image to the appropriate article is always an option. Obvious exceptions apply (better version available, etc.). --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Optimale (notify |
contribs). Bookcover. The book is not discussed in
the article where this image is used (merely listed in the ==Books== section), and therefore it fails #8 of the fair use criteria. --
88.134.44.127 15:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
This photo is quite often reproduced in books about the putsch and could be placed into
Beer Hall Putsch (no pics so far).
Pavel Vozenilek 00:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)reply
obvious keep, proper image that is very usable in encyclopedia. --
Irpen 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - given the copyright tag on the image itself, one wonders if the image is tagged correctly as public domain.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.) 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete It is an orphan and of no use to Wikipedia unless it is linked to an article. -
Nv8200ptalk 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
obvious keep, proper image that is very usable in encyclopedia. --
Irpen 15:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - given the copyright tag on the image itself, one wonders if the image is tagged correctly as public domain.--
Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.) 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete It is an orphan and of no use to Wikipedia unless it is linked to an article. -
Nv8200ptalk 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete While the original work of art is public domain, and subsequent exact photographic reproduction may qualify as non-copyrightable, this image is watermarked with the source. That makes it not an exact photographic reproduction which doesn't qualify for fair use.
CMacMillan 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
keep until discussion is over. This map is not used in the main article. This is used only the discussion whether or not Baekje had controlled the coast side of the current China at 4th century. So, it should be kept until the discussion is over. After discussion is over, and the discussion can be accepted to added the fact that Baekje had controlled the area, it cannot be removed. Otherwise, it should be removed.
In addition, you must provide why this map is exaggerated based on the historical records or historical evidence before deletion.
comment: Hairwizard91 must be trying to rewrite history, because his map image contradicts the information in the
Baekje article. That the Baekje's power extended into Southern China, Japan, Taiwan, and Northern Phillipines are completely false. And nowhere in the discussions does anybody even claim that. So the apparent source of the map must be
Breathejustice and his aforementioned map images. If anybody can provide any sources for the extent of Baekje's power, please do so. As of now, this map fails
WP:V. Also, as the image is not in any main article, it is orphaned.--
Endroit 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong delete This is just another ridiculous map exaggerating the kingdom's influence. If the author is trying to make a point he/she can use imageshack like the rest of us - wikipedia is not a free data storage facility. If it is to be used in an article, it is unrepresentative of what things were really like. Either way it should be deleted.
John Smith's 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. This is utterly ludicrous. Baekje did not control Taiwan, the east coast of China, Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu, and Luzon. --
ran (
talk) 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete as utter nonsense and a complete fabrication. ···
日本穣? ·
TalktoNihonjoe 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete total fabrication of history.
Abstrakt 22:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)reply
keepThis is an ambiguous part of history, for Chinese records DOES mention Baekje being around Shandung and other such Chinese area. It's not a total fabrication of history, just an exaggeration based on some ambiguous records that needs to be solved first.