Uploaded by
AStudent (notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) Image tagged as NoRightsReserved, but gives source as spartanband.net and gives no indication that the copyright holder has released all rights.
BigDT 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Low resolution image that depicts a specific historic event, important for the context of the article, crucial to illustrate it. Elaborate rationale provided. --
Irpen 06:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. What specific event this illustrates is not explained at all; all that's said in the caption on the article page is that he's testifying before the armed services committee. When? In what context? None of that is apparently important enough to be in the article or caption. So not only is the photo not significant, the specific event is not significant either. And besides, it's not being used in an article on the event.
Mangojuicetalk 13:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see any importance to the context of the article. -
Nv8200ptalk 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Event may be notable for him, but pic's not.
Xiner (
talk,
email) 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Most Wanted Club (notify |
contribs). (Orphaned) User's only contribution, presumably for an A7 deleted article.
BigDT 07:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The user who created this image claims it's a Sam
Taeguk. Unfortunately this image is all over Korea related articles. However, this is not and cannot be a Sam Taeguk. The arcs that seperate the colors have to gradually unwind as they move away from the center and are not
semicircles. This in itself has a meaning as well. Something like
this. Judging from the creators page she probably knows next to nothing about Korea and thought it would be a cute idea to create this "symbol" which she neither knows what it really looks like or means. Please do not even consider keeping this image as it is a huge misrepresentation.
Uploaded by
Jpag87a (notify |
contribs). (Orphaned) Tagged as GFDL-self, but a screenshot of a website and thus non-free.
BigDT 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Mtbrocket (notify |
contribs). Reasons: AB, LQ, OB This picture was in the article
Fraser Island but I replaced it with a much better picture from commons. The picture is very low quality and now obsolete for any article.
Bobo is soft 08:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
DeathSeeker (notify |
contribs). OB - "Image:N.U.D.E.@Natural Ultimate Digital Entertainment.jpg - obsoleted by Image:N.U.D.E.png" —
Robotman1974 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Jtdirl (notify |
contribs). Image has a long history, marked replaceable fair use and "disputed" by removing the RFU tag, though not following the directions in the tag. I attempted to speedy it because it had been RFU and the tag wrongfully removed but the admin said since it was disputed to go through IFD. I still claim RFU, despite not having the tag.
MECU≈
talk 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, for an image that is fair use, it has a high usage on 5 pages without each being declared why they are acceptable. I have removed this image twice from the userpage of
User:Walton monarchist89 as well. --
MECU≈
talk 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The source says it is on display in the Jewel House at the Tower of London. Is that a public place that anyone can get to? If not, then keep. But if anyone can get there, it is replaceable. --
BigDT 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
This should have been deleted ages ago because it is in violation of Crown Copyright, as has been noted often on the talk page.
Noisy |
Talk 08:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Apparently, there is an extensive collection of crown jewels that visitors to the Tower of London can see. So, this is probably replacable, and should be deleted.
Mangojuicetalk 12:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per discussion.
Xiner (
talk,
email) 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I think these and similar politically motivated images for userpages are a bad idea and are counterproductive. A
similar image was deleted like many others. --
Catout 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
DeleteImage:No Ted Kennedy.jpg as it depicts a living person in a way that could be inflammatory. Weak Keep the others as they are used in user space by a number of people and, within reason, we have wide lattitude within our own userspace. --
BigDT 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep all -- sorry, I just don't see how these are inflammatory; a simple slash-through is a very polite expression of disagreement. Ted Kennedy depicted behind bars isn't as polite, but I still don't see it rising to any kind of level that's a problem, it's quite innocuous. The userbox it's found in is kind of obnoxious, but the image itself, not as much.
Mangojuicetalk 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Well... If I were from Cyprus I would find it insulting and inflammatory to see my countries flag crossed like that (the deleted example (I presume)). I fished these images by browsing some userpages. There are many other similar images. I do not see the use of such images, the point of a userpage is not to send a political message. --
Catout 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete all non-encyclopedic.
Xiner (
talk,
email) 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep all but the Ted Kennedy one, users have a right to free expression, regardless of their sentiment (or whether they agree with your opinions) and I don't see how they could be counterproductive in any way. I believe that as an intelligent (hahaha) species, we can respect other users without threatening to kill them over Wikipedia. Deleting them as "non-encyclopedic" is not a good reason since they are only used on userpages. In the case of Ted Kennedy, it might be considered
slander so it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to support it by allowing an image of it to exist on its servers. Also, the Iran one puzzles me since it doesn't seem to be "inflammatory" as it were.
Axem Titanium 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Users do not have the right for free expression. Political userboxes are not allowed for a reason. --
Catout 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Aristovoul0s (notify |
contribs). Not present in official
Turkish Armed Forces archives, the source site is clearly anti-Turkish biased and lacks any reference for the image. Should be removed unless official and/or reliable sources can be named. —
Xasf 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC).reply
Strong Keep Politically charged propaganda poster created by the state that diplomatically refers to her military action depicted as "peace operation" contradicting the UN that has called the military action "invasion". Expecting the aggressor to keep archives in public domain of offensive propaganda while calling it "peace operation" is unheard of. The picture is a digital copy of an original poster. I challenge the nominator to bring forth any Turkish picture archives for its military operations.
[1][2]Aristovoul0s 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I'd like to kindly remind you that the
burden of evidence lies with you (as the original poster of the image) to prove that this picture is indeed an official poster created by the state as you claim. Please don't forget to heed the
official policy on reliable sources while doing so.
As for your challenge, I'd like to refer you to the state-approved historical Turkish propaganda collection from WW1 period: "Harp Mecmuası" (ISBN: 9758775138) which is available in any major bookstore throughout Turkey. This is the first "official propaganda source" that comes to my mind (as it's right on my desk), it may not be exactly what you were looking for but I think it's still quite enough to disprove your claim that Turkish archives are devoid of historical propaganda records. Take care --
Xasf 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
It is so that i dont take your word for it, this could be anything other than your claim. Published in turkey and turkish hmm smells like smoke to me.
Aristovoul0s 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
As of now (after 5 days), no
reliable sources have been named for the image and it still lacks verifiability that it is an official state poster as claimed. Take care--
Xasf 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Deleted. Image did not meet fair use criteria. There was no commentary on the poster in the article. Just decoration. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
AQu01rius (notify |
contribs). (Orphaned) Image is from www.subwaydipasqua.com/artist.html, tagged as GFDL with no evidence of permission
BigDT 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
ChrisO (notify |
contribs). Orphan, Improperly tagged - NATO photos are not in the public domain
Nv8200ptalk 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
AStudent (notify |
contribs). (Not an orphan) Image tagged as NoRightsReserved, but gives source as spartanband.net and gives no indication that the copyright holder has released all rights.
BigDT 05:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Low resolution image that depicts a specific historic event, important for the context of the article, crucial to illustrate it. Elaborate rationale provided. --
Irpen 06:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. What specific event this illustrates is not explained at all; all that's said in the caption on the article page is that he's testifying before the armed services committee. When? In what context? None of that is apparently important enough to be in the article or caption. So not only is the photo not significant, the specific event is not significant either. And besides, it's not being used in an article on the event.
Mangojuicetalk 13:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see any importance to the context of the article. -
Nv8200ptalk 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Event may be notable for him, but pic's not.
Xiner (
talk,
email) 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Most Wanted Club (notify |
contribs). (Orphaned) User's only contribution, presumably for an A7 deleted article.
BigDT 07:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The user who created this image claims it's a Sam
Taeguk. Unfortunately this image is all over Korea related articles. However, this is not and cannot be a Sam Taeguk. The arcs that seperate the colors have to gradually unwind as they move away from the center and are not
semicircles. This in itself has a meaning as well. Something like
this. Judging from the creators page she probably knows next to nothing about Korea and thought it would be a cute idea to create this "symbol" which she neither knows what it really looks like or means. Please do not even consider keeping this image as it is a huge misrepresentation.
Uploaded by
Jpag87a (notify |
contribs). (Orphaned) Tagged as GFDL-self, but a screenshot of a website and thus non-free.
BigDT 07:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Mtbrocket (notify |
contribs). Reasons: AB, LQ, OB This picture was in the article
Fraser Island but I replaced it with a much better picture from commons. The picture is very low quality and now obsolete for any article.
Bobo is soft 08:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
DeathSeeker (notify |
contribs). OB - "Image:N.U.D.E.@Natural Ultimate Digital Entertainment.jpg - obsoleted by Image:N.U.D.E.png" —
Robotman1974 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Jtdirl (notify |
contribs). Image has a long history, marked replaceable fair use and "disputed" by removing the RFU tag, though not following the directions in the tag. I attempted to speedy it because it had been RFU and the tag wrongfully removed but the admin said since it was disputed to go through IFD. I still claim RFU, despite not having the tag.
MECU≈
talk 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, for an image that is fair use, it has a high usage on 5 pages without each being declared why they are acceptable. I have removed this image twice from the userpage of
User:Walton monarchist89 as well. --
MECU≈
talk 18:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The source says it is on display in the Jewel House at the Tower of London. Is that a public place that anyone can get to? If not, then keep. But if anyone can get there, it is replaceable. --
BigDT 18:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
This should have been deleted ages ago because it is in violation of Crown Copyright, as has been noted often on the talk page.
Noisy |
Talk 08:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Apparently, there is an extensive collection of crown jewels that visitors to the Tower of London can see. So, this is probably replacable, and should be deleted.
Mangojuicetalk 12:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per discussion.
Xiner (
talk,
email) 16:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I think these and similar politically motivated images for userpages are a bad idea and are counterproductive. A
similar image was deleted like many others. --
Catout 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
DeleteImage:No Ted Kennedy.jpg as it depicts a living person in a way that could be inflammatory. Weak Keep the others as they are used in user space by a number of people and, within reason, we have wide lattitude within our own userspace. --
BigDT 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep all -- sorry, I just don't see how these are inflammatory; a simple slash-through is a very polite expression of disagreement. Ted Kennedy depicted behind bars isn't as polite, but I still don't see it rising to any kind of level that's a problem, it's quite innocuous. The userbox it's found in is kind of obnoxious, but the image itself, not as much.
Mangojuicetalk 20:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Well... If I were from Cyprus I would find it insulting and inflammatory to see my countries flag crossed like that (the deleted example (I presume)). I fished these images by browsing some userpages. There are many other similar images. I do not see the use of such images, the point of a userpage is not to send a political message. --
Catout 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete all non-encyclopedic.
Xiner (
talk,
email) 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep all but the Ted Kennedy one, users have a right to free expression, regardless of their sentiment (or whether they agree with your opinions) and I don't see how they could be counterproductive in any way. I believe that as an intelligent (hahaha) species, we can respect other users without threatening to kill them over Wikipedia. Deleting them as "non-encyclopedic" is not a good reason since they are only used on userpages. In the case of Ted Kennedy, it might be considered
slander so it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to support it by allowing an image of it to exist on its servers. Also, the Iran one puzzles me since it doesn't seem to be "inflammatory" as it were.
Axem Titanium 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Users do not have the right for free expression. Political userboxes are not allowed for a reason. --
Catout 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
Aristovoul0s (notify |
contribs). Not present in official
Turkish Armed Forces archives, the source site is clearly anti-Turkish biased and lacks any reference for the image. Should be removed unless official and/or reliable sources can be named. —
Xasf 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC).reply
Strong Keep Politically charged propaganda poster created by the state that diplomatically refers to her military action depicted as "peace operation" contradicting the UN that has called the military action "invasion". Expecting the aggressor to keep archives in public domain of offensive propaganda while calling it "peace operation" is unheard of. The picture is a digital copy of an original poster. I challenge the nominator to bring forth any Turkish picture archives for its military operations.
[1][2]Aristovoul0s 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I'd like to kindly remind you that the
burden of evidence lies with you (as the original poster of the image) to prove that this picture is indeed an official poster created by the state as you claim. Please don't forget to heed the
official policy on reliable sources while doing so.
As for your challenge, I'd like to refer you to the state-approved historical Turkish propaganda collection from WW1 period: "Harp Mecmuası" (ISBN: 9758775138) which is available in any major bookstore throughout Turkey. This is the first "official propaganda source" that comes to my mind (as it's right on my desk), it may not be exactly what you were looking for but I think it's still quite enough to disprove your claim that Turkish archives are devoid of historical propaganda records. Take care --
Xasf 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
It is so that i dont take your word for it, this could be anything other than your claim. Published in turkey and turkish hmm smells like smoke to me.
Aristovoul0s 23:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
As of now (after 5 days), no
reliable sources have been named for the image and it still lacks verifiability that it is an official state poster as claimed. Take care--
Xasf 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Deleted. Image did not meet fair use criteria. There was no commentary on the poster in the article. Just decoration. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
AQu01rius (notify |
contribs). (Orphaned) Image is from www.subwaydipasqua.com/artist.html, tagged as GFDL with no evidence of permission
BigDT 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by
ChrisO (notify |
contribs). Orphan, Improperly tagged - NATO photos are not in the public domain
Nv8200ptalk 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply