Unencyclopedic. Flag image is taken from an unreferenced Flags of the World page purporting to depict flags of the "Sixteen Great Turkish Empires", the vast majority of which are fanciful and uncited. No scholarly reference is given for this flag. --
Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I created this reproduction upon a request by one of the contributors to the
Göktürks article, believing it to add value to the article because this is the alleged flag of the Göktürk state (as I noted in the image description). The
Flags of the World web site was the most reputable online source for current and historical flags I could come up with and I did not have enough time to check printed sources. I did not even consider referring to many amateur/nationalistic online sources presenting this flag as an historical fact without doubt. I certainly don't believe Ghirlandajo can declare anything "completely unhistorical". Also please don't be so quick to judge Wikipedians' intentions, it's just rude, to say the least. I agree that the lack of the mention of an ultimate scholarly reference can be considered enough reason for this image's deletion.
Atilim Gunes Baydin11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe its use in the
Göktürks article, where it had been in use before the nomination for deletion, would be encyclopedic, with proper notice that this design is alleged (if a reliable source to that effect can be cited) or confirmed (again by some reliable reference). It could also add value to the
Asena article, covering a Göktürk folk legend about wolves, as the flag is associated with the same people and its design involves a wolve. Other possible uses could be in some existing categories/lists of historical flags.
Atilim Gunes Baydin23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
If you put it back in the article in this manner, and if it aids in the reader's understanding of the article, then I think the image should be kept. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The flag does not enhance the article because it is the invention of a user on Flags of the World. The fact that Atilim copied it from that website does not make it encyclopedic, or notable.
Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Gumilev and some other writers mention that the Gokturks had an image of golden wolf featured on their war standards. They don't cite their sources, and there is no way of knowing what that image looked like. Any modern attempts to represent that flag qualifies as original research and wild-eyed speculation. --
Ghirla-трёп-08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. As Ghirla pointed out, there are sources about the flag (e.g. Gumilev ... etc.). However, i wonder whether there exists sources claiming the contrary (this flag is not the Gokturk's flag). Unless it's
falsified, i'm in favor of keeping the image.
E10442111:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
This image was originally licensed as GFDL-self but the uploader later changed it to indicate it could "not be reproduced, redistributed or modified" and "to be used on this Wikipedia profile page only". These limitations make the file non-free and as such not available to be used on a user page.
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete while ordinarily I'd say a GFDL release is irrevocable, for an unencyclopedic personal photo perhaps we should overlook that... -
N06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, perhaps under a different license? I'm interested in keeping the photo on my page since it is indeed me. I will modify the license, or I can modify the photo slightly or get a new photo up there. Please advise.
Piewalker13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
You've already released the photo under the GFDL which is irrevocable. If you wish to continue using this image on Wikipedia you'll have to change the license back. You are always free to upload another photo under a free license as well. -
N16:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Reuploaded under free license as directed. Please review. I modified the photo slightly by cleaning up the black speck on the bottom border (it has bothered me for years). Also, I found it was interesting that the photo and my user page is indexed on the 12th page of a Google image search for "green eyes".
Piewalker14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment No longer orphaned, as it is obviously intended for use in the article about the group it depicts. I placed it into the article. The article may not even be keepable, however. —
Gaffταλκ19:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
This is a photograph of a work of art. I'm not sure that taking a photo of a work, then calling it an original piece is a valid use of GFDL. —
Gaffταλκ04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, blatant copyright violation. See
[1]. This isn't a copy of that image, but it was probably copied from the same source that one was. (Blow up the image and notice the texture. This is a poor quality scan). -
N06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
If this image can be kept, somehow, it was used on the
Yoshitomo Nara article. Please replace it (simply undo my last edit) if the image can be saved. I'm a fan of the artist, but the image seems to apparently be copyvio. —
Gaffταλκ18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Ah, I misunderstood. According to
Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan, photos of permanently installed artistic works like statues are allowed only for noncommercial use. This could be kept under a fair use claim, but the Nara article would need to give some critical commentary on the statue in order for us to keep it. howcheng {
chat}01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Prop image supposedly represents (based on file name and page it used to appear on) doesn't actually appear in picture. —
EEMeltonIV05:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep for a little while longer, until it's certain no fair-use rationale is coming from the uploader. The second picture Brock refers to is horrible quality while the first is very good.--
Mike18xx05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Photo was used on page
Gorgi which has been deleted due to unencyclopidic content and copyright violation. The picture is not used anywhere on wikipedia and should be seedily deleted —
Greatestrowerever15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Suspected copyright violation.Uploader claims to be the creator of the image but extended Metadata details show the copyright holder to be Getty Images —
No Guru17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Delete was suspicious just because it looked "too good" but I had no evidence... Metadata is convincing though. --
W.marsh18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Never mind, I figured it out. I took this image down from the Clements article, replacing the older free image. —
Gaffταλκ18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The image was deleted by Nae'blis, but the Commons copy (which has been tagged for a speedy) is showing through. On a side note, please don't upload images from SPAs with questionable licensing to Commons. --
BigDT05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation - The image might be used in violation of copyright. This photo appears on the
Mugglenet webpages - it's the photograph of the inside of a person's house and personal desktop. The uploader claims permission from the website, but I don't think so. Also, Orphan - The image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
67.149.103.11922:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
copyvio, see the URL in the left corner. Please block the guy finally: aggressive vandalism and copyvio, several blocks before —
Polarlys23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Unencyclopedic. Flag image is taken from an unreferenced Flags of the World page purporting to depict flags of the "Sixteen Great Turkish Empires", the vast majority of which are fanciful and uncited. No scholarly reference is given for this flag. --
Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I created this reproduction upon a request by one of the contributors to the
Göktürks article, believing it to add value to the article because this is the alleged flag of the Göktürk state (as I noted in the image description). The
Flags of the World web site was the most reputable online source for current and historical flags I could come up with and I did not have enough time to check printed sources. I did not even consider referring to many amateur/nationalistic online sources presenting this flag as an historical fact without doubt. I certainly don't believe Ghirlandajo can declare anything "completely unhistorical". Also please don't be so quick to judge Wikipedians' intentions, it's just rude, to say the least. I agree that the lack of the mention of an ultimate scholarly reference can be considered enough reason for this image's deletion.
Atilim Gunes Baydin11:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe its use in the
Göktürks article, where it had been in use before the nomination for deletion, would be encyclopedic, with proper notice that this design is alleged (if a reliable source to that effect can be cited) or confirmed (again by some reliable reference). It could also add value to the
Asena article, covering a Göktürk folk legend about wolves, as the flag is associated with the same people and its design involves a wolve. Other possible uses could be in some existing categories/lists of historical flags.
Atilim Gunes Baydin23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
If you put it back in the article in this manner, and if it aids in the reader's understanding of the article, then I think the image should be kept. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The flag does not enhance the article because it is the invention of a user on Flags of the World. The fact that Atilim copied it from that website does not make it encyclopedic, or notable.
Briangotts(Talk)(Contrib)03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Gumilev and some other writers mention that the Gokturks had an image of golden wolf featured on their war standards. They don't cite their sources, and there is no way of knowing what that image looked like. Any modern attempts to represent that flag qualifies as original research and wild-eyed speculation. --
Ghirla-трёп-08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. As Ghirla pointed out, there are sources about the flag (e.g. Gumilev ... etc.). However, i wonder whether there exists sources claiming the contrary (this flag is not the Gokturk's flag). Unless it's
falsified, i'm in favor of keeping the image.
E10442111:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
This image was originally licensed as GFDL-self but the uploader later changed it to indicate it could "not be reproduced, redistributed or modified" and "to be used on this Wikipedia profile page only". These limitations make the file non-free and as such not available to be used on a user page.
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete while ordinarily I'd say a GFDL release is irrevocable, for an unencyclopedic personal photo perhaps we should overlook that... -
N06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, perhaps under a different license? I'm interested in keeping the photo on my page since it is indeed me. I will modify the license, or I can modify the photo slightly or get a new photo up there. Please advise.
Piewalker13:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
You've already released the photo under the GFDL which is irrevocable. If you wish to continue using this image on Wikipedia you'll have to change the license back. You are always free to upload another photo under a free license as well. -
N16:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Reuploaded under free license as directed. Please review. I modified the photo slightly by cleaning up the black speck on the bottom border (it has bothered me for years). Also, I found it was interesting that the photo and my user page is indexed on the 12th page of a Google image search for "green eyes".
Piewalker14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment No longer orphaned, as it is obviously intended for use in the article about the group it depicts. I placed it into the article. The article may not even be keepable, however. —
Gaffταλκ19:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
This is a photograph of a work of art. I'm not sure that taking a photo of a work, then calling it an original piece is a valid use of GFDL. —
Gaffταλκ04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, blatant copyright violation. See
[1]. This isn't a copy of that image, but it was probably copied from the same source that one was. (Blow up the image and notice the texture. This is a poor quality scan). -
N06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
If this image can be kept, somehow, it was used on the
Yoshitomo Nara article. Please replace it (simply undo my last edit) if the image can be saved. I'm a fan of the artist, but the image seems to apparently be copyvio. —
Gaffταλκ18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Ah, I misunderstood. According to
Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan, photos of permanently installed artistic works like statues are allowed only for noncommercial use. This could be kept under a fair use claim, but the Nara article would need to give some critical commentary on the statue in order for us to keep it. howcheng {
chat}01:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Prop image supposedly represents (based on file name and page it used to appear on) doesn't actually appear in picture. —
EEMeltonIV05:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep for a little while longer, until it's certain no fair-use rationale is coming from the uploader. The second picture Brock refers to is horrible quality while the first is very good.--
Mike18xx05:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Photo was used on page
Gorgi which has been deleted due to unencyclopidic content and copyright violation. The picture is not used anywhere on wikipedia and should be seedily deleted —
Greatestrowerever15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Suspected copyright violation.Uploader claims to be the creator of the image but extended Metadata details show the copyright holder to be Getty Images —
No Guru17:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Delete was suspicious just because it looked "too good" but I had no evidence... Metadata is convincing though. --
W.marsh18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Never mind, I figured it out. I took this image down from the Clements article, replacing the older free image. —
Gaffταλκ18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The image was deleted by Nae'blis, but the Commons copy (which has been tagged for a speedy) is showing through. On a side note, please don't upload images from SPAs with questionable licensing to Commons. --
BigDT05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation - The image might be used in violation of copyright. This photo appears on the
Mugglenet webpages - it's the photograph of the inside of a person's house and personal desktop. The uploader claims permission from the website, but I don't think so. Also, Orphan - The image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
67.149.103.11922:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
copyvio, see the URL in the left corner. Please block the guy finally: aggressive vandalism and copyvio, several blocks before —
Polarlys23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply