I expect this is a copyvio. The uploader has uploaded a lot of other images that were taken from various websites, all marked (like this one) with {{PD-self}}. I couldn't find this one on the web, though. —
Mangojuicetalk 14:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Anybody could register name of the author at wikipedia (e.g. User Evstafiev) and claim he or she gives permission to be used. This is clearly copyright violation and no permission from the author can be authenticated apart from claims by User Evstafiev, and anybody could have registered his name. I recomment speedy deletion of the image. —
Bosniak 05:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC).reply
This image is on the
Wikimedia Commons; take your deletion request there. Remember, though, to assume good faith. —
Bkell (
talk) 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Photo of minors, no permission of the subjects, obviously not intended for encyclopedic purposese, other pages created by the uploader have been deleted as nonsense
[1],
[2],
[3] —
High on a tree 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Only used in an old reference desk question, not ensyclopedic and probably mistagged. Uploader not notified since he's banned.-
Sherool(talk) 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Small, Obsolete by Commons image
Commons:Image:George Hearst.jpg. When deleting this, no need to remove it from articles as the Commons image has the same name. howcheng {
chat} 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Commons showing. ~
BigrTex 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Permission claimed, but no OTRS ticket or validation of permission or what permission was given ("use on Wikipedia"?) E-mail needs to be sent to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org
MECU≈
talk 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I did request and receive permission from Bikel’s webmaster to upload the picture and post it in Wikipedia, but that was 1½ years ago, and the e-mail is long gone. In fact, I’m not even sure we had that OTRS policy in place back in October 2005. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) ●
DanMS •
Talk 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is an editor-created map representing battleground states in the 2008 Presidential election. As such, it represents the POV of the editor in determining whether a state is or is not a battleground state. —
Jpers36 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. The whole section is rampant POV and needs either a rewrite or probably a deletion. If a careful rewrite is conducted involving some well cited lists based notable political experts, then an image showing battleground states is valuable. As it is there's really no validity to why some states are included (Kentucky?), but others are excluded (post-Katrina Lousiana?). I do think that the discussion should be for the whole section and not just for the illustration of the POV section. Deleting the image alone just means taht the content is still there, but not presented as nicely. --
Aranae 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Perhaps some objective standard could be agreed upon? like those states that Bush/Kerry won by less than 3% in 2004? --
YbborTalk 18:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Note: Image that was originally nominated has been replaced by an engraving that is based on the Commons photo I uploaded. I am not withdrawing the nomination however; I would prefer that the original photo were used rather than a derivative work. howcheng {
chat} 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, watermarked with date
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I expect this is a copyvio. The uploader has uploaded a lot of other images that were taken from various websites, all marked (like this one) with {{PD-self}}. I couldn't find this one on the web, though. —
Mangojuicetalk 14:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Anybody could register name of the author at wikipedia (e.g. User Evstafiev) and claim he or she gives permission to be used. This is clearly copyright violation and no permission from the author can be authenticated apart from claims by User Evstafiev, and anybody could have registered his name. I recomment speedy deletion of the image. —
Bosniak 05:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC).reply
This image is on the
Wikimedia Commons; take your deletion request there. Remember, though, to assume good faith. —
Bkell (
talk) 06:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Photo of minors, no permission of the subjects, obviously not intended for encyclopedic purposese, other pages created by the uploader have been deleted as nonsense
[1],
[2],
[3] —
High on a tree 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Only used in an old reference desk question, not ensyclopedic and probably mistagged. Uploader not notified since he's banned.-
Sherool(talk) 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Small, Obsolete by Commons image
Commons:Image:George Hearst.jpg. When deleting this, no need to remove it from articles as the Commons image has the same name. howcheng {
chat} 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Commons showing. ~
BigrTex 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Permission claimed, but no OTRS ticket or validation of permission or what permission was given ("use on Wikipedia"?) E-mail needs to be sent to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org
MECU≈
talk 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I did request and receive permission from Bikel’s webmaster to upload the picture and post it in Wikipedia, but that was 1½ years ago, and the e-mail is long gone. In fact, I’m not even sure we had that OTRS policy in place back in October 2005. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) ●
DanMS •
Talk 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This image is an editor-created map representing battleground states in the 2008 Presidential election. As such, it represents the POV of the editor in determining whether a state is or is not a battleground state. —
Jpers36 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. The whole section is rampant POV and needs either a rewrite or probably a deletion. If a careful rewrite is conducted involving some well cited lists based notable political experts, then an image showing battleground states is valuable. As it is there's really no validity to why some states are included (Kentucky?), but others are excluded (post-Katrina Lousiana?). I do think that the discussion should be for the whole section and not just for the illustration of the POV section. Deleting the image alone just means taht the content is still there, but not presented as nicely. --
Aranae 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Perhaps some objective standard could be agreed upon? like those states that Bush/Kerry won by less than 3% in 2004? --
YbborTalk 18:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Note: Image that was originally nominated has been replaced by an engraving that is based on the Commons photo I uploaded. I am not withdrawing the nomination however; I would prefer that the original photo were used rather than a derivative work. howcheng {
chat} 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, watermarked with date
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply