This image is silly. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and having this in an image just seems like a way to avoid getting it deleted from the article. Also lacks proper fair use rationale to boot. --
Consumed Crustacean (
talk) 03:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Prescence of new format (.png version) and image name is too generic for it's purpose | 16:05, 9 March 2008 (GMT +8)
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 map has modern borders,modern cities whilst supposedly its for the ancient world and is centered in Bulgaria but Thracian tribes where across the Balkan region encompassing many modern states(turkey,greece,bulgaria,Fyrom)..Map is lacking and has serious issues.Seems pov centered on bulgaria.
Megistias (
talk) 11:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
You sound right but before you delete it please provide sources for your claims so that you don't have a POV problem too.
Nesnad (
talk) 11:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
map from Hoddinot,Fol and Cah The Thracians 700 BC-AD 46 The Thracians 700 BC-AD 46 by Christopher Webber and Angus Mcbride,2001,ISBN-10: 1841763292,page 5,I could analyze each tribe but it would fill the page this map i think illustrates the facts.Also Hoddinot in his analytical map of sites includes most of the balkan countries areas(greece,bulgaria,yugoslavia,european turkey & more).
Not used, possebly copyvio, looks more lik a promo shot or something out of a product catalog than a self made photo.
Sherool(talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, possible copyvio, looks more like a promo photo or something out of a product catalogue than a self made photo.
Sherool(talk) 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, probably not ensyclopedic at least none that I can tell from the total lack of descirption and filenaming.
Sherool(talk) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, also contains several copyrighted (mostly icons) and "unidentified" (background for example) elements.
Sherool(talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, no context to determine if it has any ensyclopedic use, and I'm not entierly convinced the uploader actualy created the photo either.
Sherool(talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, mashup of two non-free logos (well I guess the Nokia one may not qualify for copyright protection beeing just text and all, but still).
Sherool(talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, it's basicaly a unsourced stub article submited in PDF form. If the subject warrants an article it sohuld be written as an actual text article.
Sherool(talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, if this is indeer user created isn't it a bit like original research or citing yourself? Doesn't rely seem suitable for Wikipedia.
Sherool(talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, nice collection of 3D models, but not particularly ensyclopedic and the copyright status on the different models are not clear.
Sherool(talk) 22:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, could probably speedy delete it as a "nn-bio", but I guess strictly speaking that only applies to main namespace content...
Sherool(talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Cover to a non-notable album which was speedily deleted. Highly unlikely that it will be used in any other articles.
Fightindaman (
talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Non-free image (scan of newspaper article) used in
John Henry Lloyd only as "proof" of his date of deah. This is not apropriate use of a non-free image. We don't host full copies of our sources, we cite them, not everyting needs to be accessable online to be an acceptable source.
Sherool(talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
There was a dispute about his death date. This provides definitive proof. You are out of line posting this for deletion.
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Specifically, the Peterson book Only the Ball Was White erroneously stated the death year as 1964. The now-banned
User:Ron liebman kept insisting it was 1964 without providing any evidence. Another user found this evidence and it's necessary to prevent further edit wars... because without, we'll have to go back to using the published but incorrect 1965 date. Now do you see the can of worms you're opening up?
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying remove the source, by all means cite the article, I'm just saying we don't need a to host a full copy of it here to cite it (surely there are library arcives and such). All I'm saying is that we should not keep a non-free image around as a source unless it's absolutely nessesary (and if that's the case it needs a much stronger rationale than "one user once disputed this"), and I don't think it is in this case. If someone comes along later and refuse to accept the newspaper as a source because they can't find it online just privately e-mail them a copy or show them a photo of his headstone or whatever instead, there are lots of ways to solve such disputes without permanently hosting the full copyrighted article here. --
Sherool(talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I've asked someone who's more familiar with the Negro League stuff to look into this. If a citation will do, maybe that's OK. Meanwhile, I've already downloaded it just in case.
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
However, please note that Liebman would not listen to reason. E-mails to him did no good. He was an incredible thorn in our side, with endless sockpuppets. He seems to have finally tapered off, but it took almost a year, and I wouldn't count on anything.
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 00:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
This image is silly. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and having this in an image just seems like a way to avoid getting it deleted from the article. Also lacks proper fair use rationale to boot. --
Consumed Crustacean (
talk) 03:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Prescence of new format (.png version) and image name is too generic for it's purpose | 16:05, 9 March 2008 (GMT +8)
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 map has modern borders,modern cities whilst supposedly its for the ancient world and is centered in Bulgaria but Thracian tribes where across the Balkan region encompassing many modern states(turkey,greece,bulgaria,Fyrom)..Map is lacking and has serious issues.Seems pov centered on bulgaria.
Megistias (
talk) 11:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
You sound right but before you delete it please provide sources for your claims so that you don't have a POV problem too.
Nesnad (
talk) 11:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
map from Hoddinot,Fol and Cah The Thracians 700 BC-AD 46 The Thracians 700 BC-AD 46 by Christopher Webber and Angus Mcbride,2001,ISBN-10: 1841763292,page 5,I could analyze each tribe but it would fill the page this map i think illustrates the facts.Also Hoddinot in his analytical map of sites includes most of the balkan countries areas(greece,bulgaria,yugoslavia,european turkey & more).
Not used, possebly copyvio, looks more lik a promo shot or something out of a product catalog than a self made photo.
Sherool(talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, possible copyvio, looks more like a promo photo or something out of a product catalogue than a self made photo.
Sherool(talk) 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, probably not ensyclopedic at least none that I can tell from the total lack of descirption and filenaming.
Sherool(talk) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, also contains several copyrighted (mostly icons) and "unidentified" (background for example) elements.
Sherool(talk) 19:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, no context to determine if it has any ensyclopedic use, and I'm not entierly convinced the uploader actualy created the photo either.
Sherool(talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, mashup of two non-free logos (well I guess the Nokia one may not qualify for copyright protection beeing just text and all, but still).
Sherool(talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, it's basicaly a unsourced stub article submited in PDF form. If the subject warrants an article it sohuld be written as an actual text article.
Sherool(talk) 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, if this is indeer user created isn't it a bit like original research or citing yourself? Doesn't rely seem suitable for Wikipedia.
Sherool(talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, nice collection of 3D models, but not particularly ensyclopedic and the copyright status on the different models are not clear.
Sherool(talk) 22:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Not used, could probably speedy delete it as a "nn-bio", but I guess strictly speaking that only applies to main namespace content...
Sherool(talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Cover to a non-notable album which was speedily deleted. Highly unlikely that it will be used in any other articles.
Fightindaman (
talk) 22:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Non-free image (scan of newspaper article) used in
John Henry Lloyd only as "proof" of his date of deah. This is not apropriate use of a non-free image. We don't host full copies of our sources, we cite them, not everyting needs to be accessable online to be an acceptable source.
Sherool(talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
There was a dispute about his death date. This provides definitive proof. You are out of line posting this for deletion.
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Specifically, the Peterson book Only the Ball Was White erroneously stated the death year as 1964. The now-banned
User:Ron liebman kept insisting it was 1964 without providing any evidence. Another user found this evidence and it's necessary to prevent further edit wars... because without, we'll have to go back to using the published but incorrect 1965 date. Now do you see the can of worms you're opening up?
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying remove the source, by all means cite the article, I'm just saying we don't need a to host a full copy of it here to cite it (surely there are library arcives and such). All I'm saying is that we should not keep a non-free image around as a source unless it's absolutely nessesary (and if that's the case it needs a much stronger rationale than "one user once disputed this"), and I don't think it is in this case. If someone comes along later and refuse to accept the newspaper as a source because they can't find it online just privately e-mail them a copy or show them a photo of his headstone or whatever instead, there are lots of ways to solve such disputes without permanently hosting the full copyrighted article here. --
Sherool(talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)reply
I've asked someone who's more familiar with the Negro League stuff to look into this. If a citation will do, maybe that's OK. Meanwhile, I've already downloaded it just in case.
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply
However, please note that Liebman would not listen to reason. E-mails to him did no good. He was an incredible thorn in our side, with endless sockpuppets. He seems to have finally tapered off, but it took almost a year, and I wouldn't count on anything.
Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 00:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)reply