Once claimed GFDL-self by uploader but considered obvious vandalism by
Plasticbadge while orphan. Need comments.
Jusjih (
talk) 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Source unknown, but certainly does not represent Malang Airport, an obscure provincial Indonesian airfield. Compare to an actual picture
here.
Jpatokal (
talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Part of an image gallery on
Pacman frog; not very illustrative and too low quality to be moved to commmons. The frog is behind a dirty pane of glass and out of focus -
∅ (
∅), 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, the image is free and used in an article. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, image has been moved to commons. -
Nard 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
That is not a valid reason for nomination. All FUR requirements are met. —
Edokter •
Talk • 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a valid reason for speedy deletion, however:
WP:CSD#G4. It should be listed at
WP:DRV if someone think's Howcheng's original deletion was in error. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
On reflection, I can see the reasons both for and against keeping the image, and I don't want to get bogged down in rules lawyering. I'll let others take over from here. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
To expand on my thoughts... Just because an image was deleted earlier does not mean it can always be deleted again, just because it was reuploaded. G4 does not apply if the problem that caused the original deletion has been delt with. In any way, all
WP:FUR criteria are met, so listing it under G4 was not appropriate. —
Edokter •
Talk • 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Now a G4 tag...? Fine. This is simply not worth my energy; Image deleted. —
Edokter •
Talk • 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Lethargy should not be grounds for deletion of an image, and I would question your ability to act objectivly as an admin in this matter
Fasach Nua (
talk) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Look, my undeletion may have been an error of judgement, but this whole debacle is nothing more then a wikilayering fight with deletion tags being thrown around, but without any constructive discussion about the image itself. So it was best to be done with. And your subsequent nomination of
Image:DW Fear Her.jpg was equally witout substance. So I am not sure about your objectivity in this matter either. —
Edokter •
Talk • 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Objectivity in an editor is an entirely different matter than objectivity for an admin. An admin should be able to come in without pre-conceptions and make and enact an objective descision, all an editor does is give opinions. I think as an admin you should not use your admin powers for articles they have a personal interest in
Fasach Nua (
talk) 16:28, 7 December 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.
The Harry Potter cover shown on the picture is definitely not free. --
Prince Kassad (
talk) 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
This image does not feature the Harry Potter cover specifically. This image is the screenshot of the Malay version of Wikipedia. Should there be a claim that Harry Potter cover shown is not free, the original image of that cover located on the Malay Wikipedia page should be deleted instead.
Horacenew (
talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
This is still a bad JPG which should be replaced with a PNG. -
∅ (
∅), 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I would think the licencing should be the same as,
Image:Www.wikipedia.org_screenshot.png, there are many wikimedia copyrighted items in it too
Fasach Nua (
talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (This is ignoring the HP component)reply
Keep, the infringement is
de minimis. The cover is not an intentional or significant part of the entire image. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Question The infringement may well be
de minimis, however could one cut the cover image out, and create a derived work where the only image is the book cover, and put it under the gfdl? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fasach Nua (
talk •
contribs) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
That'd be crappy low-res... -
Nard 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Answer: No. By licensing a work under the GFDL, you are giving peremptory permission for anyone to use your work under certain circumstances -- but you can only give permission for using parts you own to copyright to. If you use small amounts of copyrighted material in your work (under a "fair use" claim, or "de minimis"), the reuser assumes all responsibility for making the same defense. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 13:28, 8 December 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Once claimed GFDL-self by uploader but considered obvious vandalism by
Plasticbadge while orphan. Need comments.
Jusjih (
talk) 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Source unknown, but certainly does not represent Malang Airport, an obscure provincial Indonesian airfield. Compare to an actual picture
here.
Jpatokal (
talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Part of an image gallery on
Pacman frog; not very illustrative and too low quality to be moved to commmons. The frog is behind a dirty pane of glass and out of focus -
∅ (
∅), 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, the image is free and used in an article. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, image has been moved to commons. -
Nard 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
That is not a valid reason for nomination. All FUR requirements are met. —
Edokter •
Talk • 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a valid reason for speedy deletion, however:
WP:CSD#G4. It should be listed at
WP:DRV if someone think's Howcheng's original deletion was in error. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 20:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
On reflection, I can see the reasons both for and against keeping the image, and I don't want to get bogged down in rules lawyering. I'll let others take over from here. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 20:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
To expand on my thoughts... Just because an image was deleted earlier does not mean it can always be deleted again, just because it was reuploaded. G4 does not apply if the problem that caused the original deletion has been delt with. In any way, all
WP:FUR criteria are met, so listing it under G4 was not appropriate. —
Edokter •
Talk • 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Now a G4 tag...? Fine. This is simply not worth my energy; Image deleted. —
Edokter •
Talk • 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Lethargy should not be grounds for deletion of an image, and I would question your ability to act objectivly as an admin in this matter
Fasach Nua (
talk) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Look, my undeletion may have been an error of judgement, but this whole debacle is nothing more then a wikilayering fight with deletion tags being thrown around, but without any constructive discussion about the image itself. So it was best to be done with. And your subsequent nomination of
Image:DW Fear Her.jpg was equally witout substance. So I am not sure about your objectivity in this matter either. —
Edokter •
Talk • 16:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Objectivity in an editor is an entirely different matter than objectivity for an admin. An admin should be able to come in without pre-conceptions and make and enact an objective descision, all an editor does is give opinions. I think as an admin you should not use your admin powers for articles they have a personal interest in
Fasach Nua (
talk) 16:28, 7 December 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.
The Harry Potter cover shown on the picture is definitely not free. --
Prince Kassad (
talk) 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
This image does not feature the Harry Potter cover specifically. This image is the screenshot of the Malay version of Wikipedia. Should there be a claim that Harry Potter cover shown is not free, the original image of that cover located on the Malay Wikipedia page should be deleted instead.
Horacenew (
talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
This is still a bad JPG which should be replaced with a PNG. -
∅ (
∅), 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I would think the licencing should be the same as,
Image:Www.wikipedia.org_screenshot.png, there are many wikimedia copyrighted items in it too
Fasach Nua (
talk) 16:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (This is ignoring the HP component)reply
Keep, the infringement is
de minimis. The cover is not an intentional or significant part of the entire image. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Question The infringement may well be
de minimis, however could one cut the cover image out, and create a derived work where the only image is the book cover, and put it under the gfdl? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fasach Nua (
talk •
contribs) 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)reply
That'd be crappy low-res... -
Nard 00:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Answer: No. By licensing a work under the GFDL, you are giving peremptory permission for anyone to use your work under certain circumstances -- but you can only give permission for using parts you own to copyright to. If you use small amounts of copyrighted material in your work (under a "fair use" claim, or "de minimis"), the reuser assumes all responsibility for making the same defense. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 13:28, 8 December 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
