The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Decision: Delete. Executed by
Aude(claim: spam.) --
Aarktica 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)reply
UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted page. —
Calton |
Talk 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
orphaned image, user has self identified as leaving, the image has no source and a claim it is PD as the image 70 years old.
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, GFDL license applied by another user and claimed as assumed GFDL
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Licensing states that the uploader created the image and released in the public domain. However, image source states that it's from a yearbook. Image certainly looks scanned as well. I believe the licensing to be invalid. Also, image is unused as it was only in a now deleted article (db-bio). —
JLaTondre 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned; uploader may have taken the photo but apparently does not hold copyright in book pictured, so cannot release it and image is unfree.
Butseriouslyfolks 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
CV, LQ. This photo of a contemporary pop star is claimed to be a painting by
Robert Koehler, which is improbable, since this is not a painting and Koehler died in 1917. Also, I doubt Koehler licenced anything under the GFDL. From a user with a history of copyright violations. —
Sandstein 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Robert Koehler is Rythmnation2004's real name. --
Fredrick day 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I am Robert Koehler, just not the same one as
Robert Koehler. You can add my middle initial "T" to differentiate.
Rhythmnation2004 10:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmm... so you are a teenager who does photorealistic painting at this skill level? I find that hard to believe. The image is patently a somewhat altered photograph by someone else, not your work.
Sandstein 11:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, do not remove IfD notices until this is settled.
Sandstein 11:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Looks like a jpeg with a filter run over it - it should be deleted as a derivative. --
Fredrick day 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Again insulting my talent. You show me what photograph I derived this from. You have no proof of that. This is a painting by me, I'm a very talented painter.
User:Rhythmnation2004.
Could you perhaps take a picture of it from a bit farther back, which would show that it's on a canvas or something?
Bladestorm 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No because I don't have a digital camera. This was made with a scanner. Also, see
WP:AGF.
Rhythmnation2004 21:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unencyclopedic, Orphaned image. It is a screenshot of what looks like a high school essay. The essay is full of spelling errors, too. —
rimshotstalk 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Some chess posission images uploaded by Camembert
All of these are made obsolete by {{Chess diagram}} and {{Chess diagram small}} (or in some cases cropped/merged screenshots of those), I guess Camembert have technicaly already consented to the deletion of these here:
User talk:Camembert#Chess images but that was a while ago so just listing them here anyway. --
Sherool(talk) 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
OR, LQ. We have several other photos of this (such as
Image:Magi (1).jpg), and their colors are more faithful to the original mosaic.
Kjetil r 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Decision: Delete. Executed by
Phaedriel(CSD I1: Redundant to another image.) --
Aarktica 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The original image
Image:Indole chemical structure.png was under GFDL-license. Therefore I could make a derivative and add the CH3 radical. There is no breach of license. Therefore deletion should be reconsidered.
JoJan 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Your answer does not address the actual reasons for deletion given above. Nobody claimed the image violates any copyright. —
isilanes (
talk|
contribs) 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary unfree image of a movie's backstage (claimed to be a screenshot) that doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned PDF. Apparently this PDF presents the "Principal [sic] of Inhomogeneous Equilibrium", which "invalidates the second law of thermodynamics". The reference given is an internal report. This sounds like crank science, with an unverifiable source. —
Bkell (
talk) 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't know why the last four are showing as redlinks now. They are still on the list of files. --
Butseriouslyfolks 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I deleted the image description pages. The files still exist in case we want to undelete them for some reason (see
[1]). howcheng {
chat} 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, appears to have been taken circa WW2 and thus photographer has not been dead for 100 years and probably unfree.
Butseriouslyfolks 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Decision: Delete. Executed by
Aude(claim: spam.) --
Aarktica 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)reply
UE, OR, AB. Used on now-deleted page. —
Calton |
Talk 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
orphaned image, user has self identified as leaving, the image has no source and a claim it is PD as the image 70 years old.
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL license added by another user and text stating "assumed GFDL"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo, GFDL license applied by another user and claimed as assumed GFDL
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Licensing states that the uploader created the image and released in the public domain. However, image source states that it's from a yearbook. Image certainly looks scanned as well. I believe the licensing to be invalid. Also, image is unused as it was only in a now deleted article (db-bio). —
JLaTondre 01:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned; uploader may have taken the photo but apparently does not hold copyright in book pictured, so cannot release it and image is unfree.
Butseriouslyfolks 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
CV, LQ. This photo of a contemporary pop star is claimed to be a painting by
Robert Koehler, which is improbable, since this is not a painting and Koehler died in 1917. Also, I doubt Koehler licenced anything under the GFDL. From a user with a history of copyright violations. —
Sandstein 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Robert Koehler is Rythmnation2004's real name. --
Fredrick day 09:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I am Robert Koehler, just not the same one as
Robert Koehler. You can add my middle initial "T" to differentiate.
Rhythmnation2004 10:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmm... so you are a teenager who does photorealistic painting at this skill level? I find that hard to believe. The image is patently a somewhat altered photograph by someone else, not your work.
Sandstein 11:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, do not remove IfD notices until this is settled.
Sandstein 11:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Looks like a jpeg with a filter run over it - it should be deleted as a derivative. --
Fredrick day 14:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Again insulting my talent. You show me what photograph I derived this from. You have no proof of that. This is a painting by me, I'm a very talented painter.
User:Rhythmnation2004.
Could you perhaps take a picture of it from a bit farther back, which would show that it's on a canvas or something?
Bladestorm 19:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No because I don't have a digital camera. This was made with a scanner. Also, see
WP:AGF.
Rhythmnation2004 21:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unencyclopedic, Orphaned image. It is a screenshot of what looks like a high school essay. The essay is full of spelling errors, too. —
rimshotstalk 13:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Some chess posission images uploaded by Camembert
All of these are made obsolete by {{Chess diagram}} and {{Chess diagram small}} (or in some cases cropped/merged screenshots of those), I guess Camembert have technicaly already consented to the deletion of these here:
User talk:Camembert#Chess images but that was a while ago so just listing them here anyway. --
Sherool(talk) 14:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
OR, LQ. We have several other photos of this (such as
Image:Magi (1).jpg), and their colors are more faithful to the original mosaic.
Kjetil r 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Decision: Delete. Executed by
Phaedriel(CSD I1: Redundant to another image.) --
Aarktica 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The original image
Image:Indole chemical structure.png was under GFDL-license. Therefore I could make a derivative and add the CH3 radical. There is no breach of license. Therefore deletion should be reconsidered.
JoJan 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Your answer does not address the actual reasons for deletion given above. Nobody claimed the image violates any copyright. —
isilanes (
talk|
contribs) 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary unfree image of a movie's backstage (claimed to be a screenshot) that doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned PDF. Apparently this PDF presents the "Principal [sic] of Inhomogeneous Equilibrium", which "invalidates the second law of thermodynamics". The reference given is an internal report. This sounds like crank science, with an unverifiable source. —
Bkell (
talk) 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't know why the last four are showing as redlinks now. They are still on the list of files. --
Butseriouslyfolks 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I deleted the image description pages. The files still exist in case we want to undelete them for some reason (see
[1]). howcheng {
chat} 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, appears to have been taken circa WW2 and thus photographer has not been dead for 100 years and probably unfree.
Butseriouslyfolks 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply