Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6

File:NABARD Logo.gif

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This orphan image has been replaced by its vector version NABARD logo.svg. ∃ Aaditya 7 06:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 6 May 2011 (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.

File:Haig-award.png

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source. Was tagged as so but an incompetent admin reverted. Damiens.rf 10:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and get a life. There are about a dozen reasons why you are acting silly. Here are a few:

The file is clearly tagged {{PD-USGov-Military}}. If you have a problem with that, you need to say what. All you say is "no source". The source (of both images) is... the United States Government Military. I, personally, dared combine the medal and the general; and I said so, right in the file description.
I created this joke award almost exactly 6 years ago. In what absurd world do you imagine that you, or anyone else, has a reasonable expectation of my time now, on immediate notice? What makes this my problem? Is everything I contribute like some ball and chain, my responsibility to manage for all time? No. You take some responsibility, dammit.
It's a wiki award; it's not article content. It is just plain flipped out for any person to be going over such stuff with a fine tooth comb. This thing exists only in userspace. Whether an ironclad chain of custody exists for the document is irrelevant to Wikipedia's mission as a free repository of data; nobody should be mirroring userspace.
Did somebody freak out? Did you get a call from DoD or Don Trump, or maybe Michael Jackson's estate: "Take down that Haig Medal; we'll sue you!" -- perhaps with a court order? I think not.
At some point, we need to let sleeping dogs lie. Otherwise, deletionism will pull the whole works down around our ears. You're on a mission from nowhere to nowhere.
If you want to discuss the file with its creator, why not ask nicely instead of throwing tags on my user talk page in defiance of the notice I have posted there?
Since you demand to know more about this image's creation, I will explain exactly:
- The image of Alexander Haig came from the WP article, Alexander Haig. It's gone, now -- no doubt lost in a previous wave of deletionism. Why? We don't know. Perhaps somebody, like you, complained that he couldn't find the source. More likely, it was deleted -- not without cause -- for being a small, blurry, poor-quality photo. Or perhaps somebody was offended, in some way, feeling that the General was not shown off to his best effect -- or inappropriately glorifed in his battle fatigues. When you delete, delete, delete; eventually you delete history, too. And soon you don't even know what you've deleted, or why. Now, you're relying on the human memory of one old guy to tell you that the original photo was tagged {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Now, if you think I have more info in my head, your expectations are excessive.
- But, while we're on the subject -- and because I do have an incredible memory -- I recall that the original photo's file description mentioned that it was taken by a military photographer working for Stars and Stripes. That publication being a work of the US military, the PD tag is exactly correct. It is of the same vintage as this photo and I don't doubt that if you researched hard enough, you would find the photo I used somewhere in their archives.
- The image of the Medal of Honor was taken from the page Medal of Honor. If you did research and work instead of just spraying the wiki with bot-generated tags, you'd see that I used an image of the first such medal, another image of which is shown here. The image I had to work with was not nearly so good. You would see that there is a clever little licensing tag just for such things that locates it within the public domain.
You anger me with this mad deletionist tagging. I'll admit I didn't do a great deal of work to create this little toy but you did nothing except let your bot loose. You didn't think; you didn't look. I think you should be required to invest at least as much effort before you are allowed to roll around with your tags; as I did, just today.
Did it occur to you, if you felt something lacking here, to supply it? Did you think to do work? Did you get out some tools and craft a replacement? Did you research the origins of the award and find the answers you seek? Or did you just seek to force somebody else to feed your need?
You have completely missed the massive irony of attempting to delete this award. I created this award specifically to commemorate a former high-ranking Wikipedian who took control and deleted the useless, contentious, divisive page then known as Articles for Deletion. The point of the award was to recognize the irony in that act. Haig is famous as the man who seemed to try a military coup, declaring after the Reagan assassination attempt, "As of now, I am in control here..." The point is that Haig was fourth in line of succession and from a scholastic viewpoint, out of control himself; but in practice, he kept the seat hot when nobody else was available. Somebody needed to alert the Wikipedian Community to the horrors of deletionism within a divisive, silly, and arbitrary process; and the first recepient of The General Alexander Haig Medal of Honor did so -- and, like Haig, was castigated and forever stigmatized for doing what had to be done.
I promise to create a special award just for you, if you manage to ram through this deletion. You will not be proud to display it but I will be certain to enshrine your foolishness forever.

— Xiong 熊 talk * 15:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP's mission is to provide redistributable free (as in speech) content, with exceptions made for appropriate non-free imagery. Because of the mess that copyright law is, we have to start on the presumption that every image is non-free until proven otherwise. You are probably right that this is a PD-Gov image, but we cannot verify that by simply looking at the image alone. The lack of a source gives us no means to assure that it came from a government source. You need to locate and identify this source, otherwise, we have to assume its copyrighted (per US law), and thus treat it as non-free as outlined at WP:NFCC. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epic. --Damiens.rf 18:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The portion of this file that is a photo of Haig is cropped from the second photo in the gallery at http://www.stripes.com/news/from-the-s-s-archives-haig-visits-troops-stresses-role-within-nato-1.14405. Didn't take long to find. The website claims that "Stories and photos by Stars and Stripes staffers are copyrighted, and may not be reprinted or used without permission." It describes Stars and Stripes as "Dept. of Defense-authorized", and the article Stars and Stripes (newspaper) says it's only partially subsidized by the DOD. So it's not clear to me that its content would qualify as PD-USGov. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my findings. I was hoping someone might know something I didn't or have a counterargument, but alas. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, given the vast quantity of information, please let me explain why.
Xiong, I admire your passion, but your logic is off. First of all, Stars and Stripes is only subsidized by the DoD. As such, it is NOT a military organization and, in fact, is not even part of the military. Technically, it isn't even part of the U.S. Government. Just like PBS or AAFES can produce copyrighted works (like TV shows and ads), so can S&S. Since it isn't gov't produced, it is eligible for copyright under criteria for published works. Since it was published first in 1976 and had appropriate copyright markings (the original was published in print form with a copyright prominently displayed on the opening page), the image is indeed copyrighted. Your comments are pretty hostile and I think you could just step back a bit or ask for assistance next time. No need to get offended. Stuff gets nominated for deletion all the time. Just state your rationale and reasonable people will make an assessment. I also find it in poor taste to give someone a Medal of Honor for WP work.

Masem, again, your opinion, "Because of the mess that copyright law is, we have to start on the presumption that every image is non-free until proven otherwise," is complete bunk. This is what YOU and others do, but it is not in policy or guidelines anywhere. You cannot and should not say "it's copyrighted" instead of making a good-faith effort to determine the copyright status of an image.

Damiens, your initial snide comments aren't needed. Even admins make mistakes. Request you retract them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the weren't needed and I'll avoid them in the future. But I would be dishonest in retracting them (or actually pretending to retract), since I sincerely distrust that admin's qualification. --Damiens.rf 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have said "redact" as in "strike out". You can distrust that admin if you wish, but you shouldn't poison the well. You've made enough contributions to know to comment on the content, not on the contributor. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Copyright law says that since 197x (I forget the exact year) every work is copyrighted as long as its published unless otherwise stated. It is thus the burden of uploaders to prove, if they are claiming it, the PD nature of the work. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It kinda runs out to 1989, but there are some nuances that need to be addressed. Here's an "easy" chart to help everyone out, but I get the point of what you are saying. I just didn't want the average layperson to misunderstand. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per postdlf's findings. And, yes, it would have been the duty of the uploader to provide precise sources from the beginning, so yes, this ought to have been handled as a speedy; King of Hearts was wrong in de-tagging it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per postdlf's sound analysis. The personality-directed arguments on each side are distracting attention away from the principal issue. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is missing all the important points. How did such a good idea (as Wikipedia) turn into such a swamp of foolishness?

This award is a toy. It is an amusement or, if you feel the need to dignify it, an incentive provided to editors. It doesn't matter in any deep sense.

My outrage has nothing to do with whether this file itself is kept. Be Bold. If you see something that needs doing, fix it. Nothing at all here requires an elaborate bureacratic process. Get busy. Do work.

If Stars and Stripes isn't DoD, then I'll be steeped in shit. But that wouldn't be the first time. I stand corrected. This is so bad.

So, let the hardworking, industrious editor who found out this big shortcoming go to work and craft a replacement. Like it or not, there are now several recipients of this award. Deleting the image that represents it should not retroactively recind the award itself -- the award being community recognition, not a damn picture.

And, as I said, none of this requiring tags.

Y'all see my talk page? Don't tag it. Don't put any tags there, at all. That's my talk page. I don't want tags on it. I don't want to be roused from my peaceful slumber by somebody who is too lazy to work and too cowardly to Be Bold. I don't want to be notified of anything, by anybody, unless that person has the time, energy, and honesty to write a note, comment, or question personally. Have you all got that now?

I don't want to be involved in this. I don't want to be involved in editing anymore; I'm pretty much tired out and infuriated at the rising crapflood. I don't want to be interrupted in my browsing of articles (which may, sometimes, be useful or at least entertaining) by these snide little notices of nothing.

If you'd just asked me nicely, I'd have been happy, as a simple human courtesy, to make a replacement image. It's not that hard. Why be so damn rude? Why the urge to start a big fight?

I said I'd make a special award to celebrate the foolishness of deleting an internal award created to celebrate the bravery and foolishness of attempting to delete an internal process page full of foolish contention revolving around deletionism. I will.

Since it seems nobody has the least idea how a wiki works in this case, I'll explain simply:

Go find a photo of Alexander Haig. Satisfy yourself that it meets current copyright standards. Do the same for a photo of (a/the) Medal of Honor.
Take out your handy toolbox. I suggest the GIMP since, if you've got a copyright itch, it's FOSS. Glue the medal on the general. Resize the damn thing; there is no point in the whole being much taller than an inch.
Now follow the link to upload a new version of the file. Upload your improved creation and edit the description page to include your voluminous source citations and, while you're at it, take credit for all your hard work.
DO NOT DELETE the original file. That's stupid; you're destroying history and breaking links all over.
DO NOT TAG MY USER TALK PAGE. That's silly; I don't want to be involved.
DO NOT CREATE ANOTHER CONTENTIOUS SUBPROCESS. Nobody else needs to expend energy on this. You can do it all yourself and you don't need anybody else's endorsement.

Do that and I'll be content. Even better, I'll be totally ignorant of what you've wasted your time on. Best of all, you won't have wasted any of mine.

— Xiong 熊 talk * 20:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. Someone please brief me on that. --Damiens.rf 06:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a file is in violation of copyright (like this one is), then it has to be deleted. There is no requirement for anyone else to create something to replace it, though you are welcome to do so. In the meantime, please try to calm down. There are plenty of people who are willing to assist. For example, I support a 24-hour stay for this file's deletion in order for Xiong to create a new file to place in its stead (even if it is just a black & white box saying "image forthcoming" that would be fine). — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:36, 9 May 2011 (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.

File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's Stamp.JPG

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free stamp, purely decorative use, stamp is not the object of discussion in the article, hence fails NFCC#8 Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 6 May 2011 (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.

File:PAF C-130 Airborne mission.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free historical photograph, showing soldiers parachuting from an airplane. Not needed to understand the textual coverage either of the historical event in question, or of the technical details of the parachuting (the former can easily be covered by a textual description of the military and political significance of the event alone, while the latter could be illustrated with alternative media if that were required.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 6 May 2011 (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.

File:Munir Ahmad Khan with Abdus Salam.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free historical photograph showing three men simply sitting together in an unknown, nondescript situation. All three persons have their own articles with their separate photographs (2 free, one legitimate non-free). The mere fact that they once posed together for a photograph is not a significant fact commented on in the article, and wouldn't be in need of illustration even if it were. FUR claims it's a "unique historic image" of an "historical event", but there doesn't seem to be such an event because the FUR can't even say when and where it was. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 6 May 2011 (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.

File:Portal.liberalism.en.png

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 result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Used another file as an example to format the text part of the graphic image. Meant to change file name but made a mistake, and file was still named after example file even though the file is the new one just with a name based on the example. Wish to delete and upload again with the correct file name and everything else correct. Abel (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2011 (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.

File:Theonlywayisessex.jpg

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 result of the discussion was: Keep VernoWhitney (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Purpose of use: infobox," is not sufficient and does indicate how the image meets NFCC 8. The lack of critical commentary in the article pertaining to this graphic is also concerning, or if I'm missing it, please could someone quote it to me? ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect critical commentary regarding a title screen. It's a standard image to use to identify a TV series, and I note many FA-class TV series articles do so as well (e.g., Firefly (TV series), Aquaman (TV program)) without critical commentary about the title screen itself, so this can't be called a controversial usage. Or you could swap it for a DVD cover as this FA uses, but I don't see the difference.
BTW, I took care of notifying the uploader for you and also posted a notice on the talk page of the article that uses it. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little bit of cleanup on the fur. In the mean time keep. It seems established practice to use the title cards of shows to illustrate the main infoboxes of those shows. Donno about how it stands up to the NFCC, but there are hundreds of these, so we'd have to hold an RfC on it and uniformly apply the results. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unfortunately I wasn't (thanks to lack of notification from the nominator) aware of this nomination until after the two good faith comments above were made, otherwise I would have reverted the nomination as a rampant bad faith WP:POINT making disruptive nomination. TT, leave me and my uploads the hell alone - if you seriously feel an image I've uploaded fails the NFCC criteria then get a third opinion and if THEY concur THEY can nominate it for deletion. The next time you spuriously nominate an image I've uploaded for deletion I WILL request administrative intervention - consider yourself duly warned. Postdlf, thankyou for having the courtesy to inform me of this nomination. Exxolon (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your groundless and unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith. I think you've previously accused me of stalking you – please let me assure you that you are just as wrong this time as you were then. I am also interested in how you can possibly justify uploading an image with the stated 'purpose' being "infobox" – that is patently not enough to satisfy the criteria. I will gladly "leave you and your uploads [and your false allegations] the hell alone" just as soon as you stop uploading content with piss-poor rationales.
I would also be interested to have a link to the policy which permits editors to un-nominate their own content for deletion if they disagree. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 12:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet all criteria. And perhaps a RFC is in order. Exxolon, your demands are not in line with WP policy. Anyone can nominate an image for deletion. While I do not think that TT is right in this case, an admin isn't going to side with you on this one unless you can show a clear trail of hounding. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:36, 7 May 2011 (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.