Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 1

< February 28	March 2 >

March 1

File:BluegreenFountainsResort.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:NFCC#1 & WP:NFCC#8. A free image could be easily attained by visiting any location for Bluegreen Properties and this image simply shows a property which is not necessary to the understanding that Bluegreen is a resort properties corporation. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:43, 1 March 2013 (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:Picture 099.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopaedic Nabla (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2013 (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:Sudhanssaltlake.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopaedic Nabla (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2013 (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:BSA BANTAM D1.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: No valid nomination reason supplied -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation Kirc (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reached out to the uploader/nominator at User talk:Kirc. This image is in use at BSA Bantam and if this is just donor's remorse (as opposed to actually saying that he lied about being the copyright holder when he uploaded it), then we don't normally accept those requests, particularly for in-use images. Right to vanish doesn't mean right to take your contributions with you. --B (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the image is sized for web use/resolution, there is no meta data, which is a sign that the image has been altered. Also, it was used as a person's avatar on on a BSA forum here for at least a few days before it was uploaded to Wikipedia. That being said, its a very good quality photo, and I would hate for us to lose it. Maybe the uploader can clarify. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 19:14, 9 March 2013 (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:Great Mosque Of Kano.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation from [1], [2], published November 2008 Atlasowa (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. What is your basis for saying that the allaboutnigeria.org image was published in 2008? Archive.org only has that page going back to 2011. I opened up the two images and compared them. The one from allaboutnigeria.org is a higher resolution, but it was clearly upconverted from a lower resolution, as opposed to being the original and there are JPEG artifacts found in their version not found in our version. Please see http://brinkleys.org/users/tsl/Files/imagecomparison.jpg. The image on the left is an upconversion of our image that I performed and the one on the right is the supposed original. Note that there are very pronounced JPEG artifacts around the guy's head that don't exist in our version. If their version were the original, you would see additional detail there that was lost in our's. The user's other two uploads are certainly far more suspicious and certainly give me pause, but I would bet $eleventy billion that allaboutnigeria.org is copying it from here, not the other way around. Whether Congo2000 is the actual author or not is a separate question, but the existence of the image on allaboutnigeria.org is no evidence that he is not. Archive.org's copies of allaboutnigeria.org are screwed up and don't display right, but from what I can tell, the site was completely redone in 2011. Also, if you Google image search for images from allaboutnigeria.org, it's clear that a lot of their images are copied from elsewhere. I found some from flickr, some from government websites, and some that are used all over creation (which usually means they came from here). Also, if you scroll down, there are a bunch of maps that are obviously Wikipedia maps. The bottom line is, allaboutnigeria got this image from Wikipedia, not the other way around. --B (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B, according to the page information of [3] (Firefox browser -> Tools -> Page Info) this page was last modified on 13. November 2008 21:11:54, while Congo2000 uploaded the image on 9 July 2010 18:14. And do have a look at the other copyrightviolations of User_talk:Congo2000 and commons:User_talk:Congo2000. Looks like a pretty clear case. --Atlasowa (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Firefox get that "page information" from? If I look at page information on our version of the image, it says July 29, 2012, which is well after the image was uploaded. I don't think that the date is right. For example, this image at allaboutnigeria was very clearly stolen from [4] (image link) The source site gives a page info date of April 2011 for the image, whereas allaboutnigeria gives a date of January 2009. So I'm not sure that the date itself is reliable. All of allaboutnigeria's images were copied from elsewhere and plenty of them were copied from here ... and their image is clearly an upscale ... so either (a) Wikipedia is the source or (b) Wikipedia and allaboutalgeria both took the image from somewhere else. I agree with you that the user's other uploads look more than suspicious and so I'm inclined to go with option (b) for that reason ... --B (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you download an image, the webserver sends some HTTP headers to your computer, containing information about the file, for example telling that it is a JPEG image. For example, when I download the image at [5], my browser receives the following headers:

Extended content

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 15:49:36 GMT
Etag: "49eb9-45b97b94f1680"
Last-Modified: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:11:54 GMT
Server: ECD (dca/53D5)
X-Cache: HIT
Content-Length: 302777

Firefox takes the date from the line beginning with "Last-Modified". This date is usually the date when the file was uploaded to the webserver, but since the headers are sent out from the webserver, the owner of the webserver is free to fake the information in any way he wants. The timestamp on the line beginning with "Date" indicates the time when I downloaded the image and is totally irrelevant here.

You can't always trust the Last-Modified header. For example, [6] returns "Last-Modified: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:40:25 GMT" but from the page history, we know that it was uploaded in 2010 (not 2012).

The photo looks like a scan of a paper photo (otherwise there wouldn't be small black "spots" everywhere), but this doesn't have to mean anything. It could be a scan of a private photo, or it could be a scan of a printed publication. If it is a scan, then checking file resolution won't be very helpful: other copies on the Internet might be different scans of the same image, and the paper photo isn't pixel-based anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, deleted. I'm not convinced that allaboutnigeria.org is the source for the image (and their image is definitely and undeniably an upscale of our image), it seems unlikely that the uploader is the original author. --B (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2013 (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.