Also Copyright violation: After further review, I believe that this is a derivative work since everything appears to be in the EXACT same location. The shadows, vehicle, and power lines appear to be exactly the same. It looks like Bobbarker1291 has photoshopped a message to his/her friend Shawn. A deriative work would require the same attribution since I tagged the original image "Attribution ShareAlike", not Public Domain.
Royalbroil18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - No need for the second image, especially as it's 'faked' making it's value in an encyclopedia less than the original.
AlexJ10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Not an orphan, a commons image is based on the image I created. Please don't delete it. It is CC-by-SA, what do you mean by "the given source has a copyright statement with no evidence of Creative Commons license"? Why do you believe otherwise? -
Ta bu shi da yu22:13, 15 October 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.
Keep. Radical faeries are widely known for creative attire and this image illustrates that eccentricity and creativity as well as perfectly dovetailing the incorporation of modern technologies into drag aesthetics. Also I personally hope that all uploaders will also be editors and contribute to articles, not sure why that would be a problem.
Benjiboi21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete, licensing problems. The first upload says there's permission to use the photo, but then a subsequent upload's comments try to attach some condition - I can't read it - to the use of the photo. This should therefore be deleted as a 'permission' image. Uploader should re-upload and specifically say in the comments he took the photo and is releasing it under the GFDL as the tag claims. Attaching any permission to it is not compatible with the GFDL. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tempshill (
talk •
contribs)
03:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The rest of the text says "My only requirement is that I be given credit for the photograpth, the model, and the lighted raincoat." --
RG201:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Not liking is no reason to delete. If the article monitors want the image, we should not decide to delete. GFDL and harmless. --
Knulclunk03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep -- It's a nice illustration of RadFae dress, and as a Radical Faerie, I don't have a problem with the image being used to illustrate the article. For the record, I know the model in the photo who created the outfit.
Kevyn04:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Image kept. Free image. Consensus is the image is encyclopedic in the article it is used in in. Sometimes it is necessary to have a person in the image, in this case someone to model the attire. Using the uploader as a model means no model release is necessary and the image is more free to use. -
Nv8200ptalk14:38, 4 November 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.
this image is being used to illustrate FDR's "ebullient personality". This is a US president--there should be plenty of free images available! no reason to use this nonfree one.
Calliopejen119:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
does not contribute significantly to article (readers would not be harmed by its omission), and probably replaceable - could take this same picture with many subjects
Calliopejen121:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Also Copyright violation: After further review, I believe that this is a derivative work since everything appears to be in the EXACT same location. The shadows, vehicle, and power lines appear to be exactly the same. It looks like Bobbarker1291 has photoshopped a message to his/her friend Shawn. A deriative work would require the same attribution since I tagged the original image "Attribution ShareAlike", not Public Domain.
Royalbroil18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - No need for the second image, especially as it's 'faked' making it's value in an encyclopedia less than the original.
AlexJ10:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Not an orphan, a commons image is based on the image I created. Please don't delete it. It is CC-by-SA, what do you mean by "the given source has a copyright statement with no evidence of Creative Commons license"? Why do you believe otherwise? -
Ta bu shi da yu22:13, 15 October 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.
Keep. Radical faeries are widely known for creative attire and this image illustrates that eccentricity and creativity as well as perfectly dovetailing the incorporation of modern technologies into drag aesthetics. Also I personally hope that all uploaders will also be editors and contribute to articles, not sure why that would be a problem.
Benjiboi21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete, licensing problems. The first upload says there's permission to use the photo, but then a subsequent upload's comments try to attach some condition - I can't read it - to the use of the photo. This should therefore be deleted as a 'permission' image. Uploader should re-upload and specifically say in the comments he took the photo and is releasing it under the GFDL as the tag claims. Attaching any permission to it is not compatible with the GFDL. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tempshill (
talk •
contribs)
03:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The rest of the text says "My only requirement is that I be given credit for the photograpth, the model, and the lighted raincoat." --
RG201:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Not liking is no reason to delete. If the article monitors want the image, we should not decide to delete. GFDL and harmless. --
Knulclunk03:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep -- It's a nice illustration of RadFae dress, and as a Radical Faerie, I don't have a problem with the image being used to illustrate the article. For the record, I know the model in the photo who created the outfit.
Kevyn04:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Image kept. Free image. Consensus is the image is encyclopedic in the article it is used in in. Sometimes it is necessary to have a person in the image, in this case someone to model the attire. Using the uploader as a model means no model release is necessary and the image is more free to use. -
Nv8200ptalk14:38, 4 November 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.
this image is being used to illustrate FDR's "ebullient personality". This is a US president--there should be plenty of free images available! no reason to use this nonfree one.
Calliopejen119:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
does not contribute significantly to article (readers would not be harmed by its omission), and probably replaceable - could take this same picture with many subjects
Calliopejen121:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply