Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< July 14 July 16 >

July 16[edit]

File:May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake.jpg[edit]

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: Transfer to Wikimedia Commons, updating the version there. (NAC) Fleet Command (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Juanacho (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Delete as nom. Diego Grez ¿qui pa'? 03:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Wikimedia Commons This file is the NEWER version of the one that is available on Wikimedia Commons. Repeat, the one on Commons is outdated. I verified this following the hyperlink to each source. Fleet Command (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, my fault. Transferred to Commons this updated version, can be deleted safely. Diego Grez ¿qui pa'? 16:26, 15 July 2010 (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:Media center.JPG[edit]

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. I don't see why File:MCE 2005.png can't be used instead of the nominated file. It may be more appealing, which is subjective, but there's no policy-based reason to keep this. — ξxplicit 22:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Media center.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Edbert.V (notify | contribs | uploads).

  • This image is in violation of Wikipedia Non-free content criterion 3a since File:MCE 2005.png is already uploaded to Wikipedia.

    Recommended verdict: Delete this image and replace with File:MCE 2005.png. Fleet Command (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, I prefer the nominated file to the original. It's more clear what the UI looks like and (though this is trivial) the name is more descriptive. I guess some bot will come by and whine-by-proxy that the image isn't low rez, but that's something of a non-sensical requirement for OS screenshots. Protonk (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand you. The nominee is flashy and more attractive. But it also has JPEG artifact. Besides, it is uploaded later than what you call the "original". (Although I {{non-free reduce}}ed the "original", hence its date should be that of 2010.) Still, let's get more consensus on this matter. Eventually, the closing admin can give us a third opinion if no one else did. Fleet Command (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2010 (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:RealCleverTrick.ogg[edit]

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 - note that AGF in these discussions often means - Assume that the uploader did not understand the concept of a derivative work (we should not assume uploaders understand copyright)....which seems the case here - Peripitus (Talk) 09:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RealCleverTrick.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by LisaSuarez802 (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Music sample. I doubt this is freely licensed. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transfer to Wikimedia Commons: I can't know for certain whether this file is indeed not licensed as the author claims. Hence, I choose to assume good faith. In time, transferring this file to commons makes sense. If any concrete evidence of license misrepresentation is found, consider this opinion of mine void. Fleet Command (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • AGF doesn't mean we assume that the license is correct. It means we assume the uploader isn't out to do harm. Determining whether or not we have freely licensed content is about outcomes, not intent--so AGF can't inform that decision. There is either evidence that the content is free, or not. Protonk (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • But dear Protonk, every time I meet an administrator, he or she adds one more exception to what AGF applies to. The sum of these exceptions would entirely void AGF. In any case, misrepresenting a piece of work's license is same as intending or disregarding a subsequent harm.

          But first thing first: Is there any evidence that this file's copyright status is (deliberately or unwittingly) misrepresented? If no, then disregard nominator and Keep. If yes, then assess whether this file must be deleted. Any objections?

          Fleet Command (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, AGF is about intent. Not outcomes. You can't assume good faith of a fact. It doesn't make sense. If I put a false claim in a Wikipedia article we can certainly assume I mean well but what does it mean to assume that the claim I make in the article is true? They aren't the same claims. And we require a license. Not absence of evidence of malfeasance. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You DO have a license. You also do have absence of evidence of that license being misrepresented. What more do you want to keep this photo? Fleet Command (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Any evidence that the source is under a free license? It's a sample from a song whose authors have given no indication they freely released. This isn't rocket science. Wikipedia requires that uploaded files contain an accurate and correct license. The burden of furnishing that license is on the uploader. And it isn't at all uncommon to see people tag non-free content as free just to avoid being bothered by bots or avoid the file getting deleted (since freely licensed content doesn't go into categories where people are watching closely). Protonk (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • NOTE: I just remove the last two replies here. They weren't meant for this discussion. Sorry for that mistake, although I find it quite strange that you (Protonk) invariably challenge all my Transfer recommendations in every FfD. Anyway, back to our FfD...
                • Uploader says it is free and you lack an evidence that he is not telling the truth. It is not just me who accepts uploader's testimony: In another FfD, I nominated a file that I thought to have an invalid source. Administrator Fastily and Administrator Mifter however, recommended keeping this file, taking the word of the uploader for granted. You are the first ever-dubious Administrator that I have had the chance of meeting.
                • Per WP:AGFC, assume good faith when dealing with copyright issues. Fleet Command (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a picture. It is a music sample. From a band whose works are automatically copyrighted in the united states. There is no indication that the band has released their tracks under a free license and therefore a sample is a copyrighted derivative work of the original. It's very simple. And it is unrelated to the good faith we extend the uploader. Have you seen me tar the uploader as some offender? Have I suggested that the uploader is twirling his mustache this very minute over the impending collapse of wikipedia's free content mission? No. I've merely pointed out the facts of the matter. Protonk (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • First: Picture or music makes no different in this context. All of the policies and laws that you discuss apply to both equally well.

      Second: You seem to be just repeating what said earlier. I still disagree and I refrain from repeating why.

      Third: This discussion is seemingly becoming unnecessarily heated but remains devoid of anything new. It's time we stopped to await a third opinion or the closing administrator's decision. At least, that's what I am going to do.

      See you around.

      Fleet Command (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, considering you deleted my last respone, is it any wonder I felt the need to repeat it? Protonk (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the uploader LisaSuarez802 (talk · contribs) has been involved in edits involving Analog Rebellion for over three years now and has never previously suggested that she's acting in any official capacity. That makes it rather unlikely that she's in a capacity to relicense samples IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:50, 21 July 2010 (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:Kashani.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kashani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Thatspeed (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Without publication date the copyright cannot be verified. feydey (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exact publication date is not really significant in this special case: The person in the picture has died half a century ago; hence the picture's age is more than 50 years and therefore it's copyright has expired 20 years ago. Although I think this is not a very beautiful picture, I don't think beauty or artistic merit, in this case, is a good reason for deleting it. Fleet Command (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright has nothing to do with the life of the subject. If the subject died 50 years ago and the image was taken (and published) in the US at most 37 years before that and copyright was filed for and extended, the image would still not be in the public domain. Protonk (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That applies to US only. Iranians do not extend their copyright. And it is impossible for the photo to have remained not published for twenty years or more; such a survival of film and photo-shot without publications requires film being kept in expensive facilities.

    Mind you Protonk, I myself am very strict about copyright laws of photos. But in this case, I can't really issue a verdict of kill for such extremely far-fetched assertion of copyright noncompliance. Besides, Iranians are not mindful of their intellectual properties. Why should we be?

    Fleet Command (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it is our job to create and maintain a repository of free content for the world to use and reuse. If we neglect our duty to ensure that copyright then we are falling down on that job. The subject is iranian. Was the photographer? Was the photograph published in Iran? What if it was published in the Ivory Coast? Protonk (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyright tag says that the image falls within the purview of Iranian intellectual property laws. Hence, the photograph's publication outside Iran is out of question. If you are of the opinion that the uploader have lied and misrepresented the license, you had better have a very good reason. Fleet Command (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also. It isn't a "verdict". It isn't a court of law and the result isn't "kill". the result is that an image is no longer hosted on a server. It's not an extreme outcome. It's a day to day activity. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, Protonk, refrain from attacking the literature of my writing. You know what I meant, I know what I meant and the closing administrator will know it too. Fleet Command (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I made the comment because the discussion doesn't need emotion pumped into it. Adding hyperbole on the assumption that the underlying meaning is understood by all involved clouds the discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The file's uploader, User:Thatspeed, has a history of uploading images with false licensing info (see his talk page) and is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Amir.Hossein.7055, who is currently blocked for a year for the same kinds of problems. See the SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. In view of that, some consideration should be given to the possibility that the image was not originally published in Iran. Nsk92 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Posted by a user with a history of violating copyright and misrepresenting license tags. Lacks source. Fleet Command (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (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:Grigoryants4.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grigoryants4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ggaddar (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Dispute source of this file, looks like a copyright photo that has been scanned. Codf1977 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (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:Grigoryatns4.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grigoryatns4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ggaddar (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Dispute source / Copyright of this file.

The caption tagged to this file in the user space article says "This image appeared in 19? issue of Soviet Uzbekistan magazine." Codf1977 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2010 (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:The Variable.png[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Variable.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Igordebraga (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • The image fails WP:NFCC#8 and #1. It doesn't increase readers' understanding of the topic, and the scene can be conveyed in words. Theleftorium (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: NFCC 8: Contextual significance is not violated since the picture helps readers visually identify the subject of the article and distinguish this notable episode from the many others. Everything in the article is about this picture. Only a very vague glimpse of the scene can be described with words, which is far from enough.

    NFCC 1: No free equivalent is undoubtedly not violated, since the picture is a shot of copyrighted film.

    Fleet Command (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You forgot that text (which could describe this image easily, if it needs describing) is free. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with a more appropriate image of this episode that can properly represent it, such as those explained by Protonk below. Fleet Command (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh It fails NFCC #1 pretty handily (probably 8 as well, but I haven't read the sources). On the other hand, is it unreasonable to have a single piece of non-free media for an episode? I haven't watched the 5th season of lost so I can't speak to this exact episode, but I don't see why there couldn't be some iconic image from "The Variable" which might meet NFCC #8 (e.g. the 4 toed statue, the hatch, the numbers, etc.). As it stands the image is pretty non-descript. There is what I presume to be a gun in the foreground, but apart from that blurry occlusion, the shot may as well be the two characters standing side-by-side. Hard to say that can't be replaced by free images of the actors and some text. Soo.....delete? Maybe? Protonk (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails NFCC#1 and NFCC#8 fairly conclusively. We don't have to have a non-free image for every episode article. Sometimes they're useful; most of the time they're just excessive. Our readers aren't going to run away screaming just because there aren't any pretty pictures there. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think screaming would have done anything with image getting deleted or not, if they did scream. My rationale (as well as image fair-use rationale) is that when a TV series has a lot of episodes, only a picture can help bring back memories of a certain episode. Text (especially mention of characters) won't help: Characters are always doing cliche things. Exit NFCC 1. As for NFCC 8, I think Protonk has a point. Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He does. But NFCC1 is failed by this image as well - what is there that can't be described by "character X was held at gunpoint"? Nothing. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only a picture can help bring back memories of a certain episode" – What? You actually think a single image will bring back more "memories" than reading a full plot summary? Theleftorium (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. You got that right. One of my literary practical jokes is to remove the proper nouns from a rewritten plot summary before putting it in front of a group of people and asking them to tell me which story the plot is talking about. Result: Each tell me the name of a different story/movie/video game and they are all correct. The plots are all cliche, especially when they are written in encyclopedic tone. As Agatha Christie puts it, "there is nothing new under the sun." Fleet Command (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the uploader, I'm willing to put another image. I just don't know what could be the most appropriate. igordebraga ≠ 22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless the image clearly passes all the criteria of NFCC, there is no reason to have one at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, an image does in fact evoke the scene in a more direct manner than any wording--that's why the visual arts exist in the first place. So it meets #8. And it meets no 1, because there is no reasonable way a free picture can exist of the episode unless they released the episode to a free license,m which is not credible. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well by that logic any screenshot of any copyrighted work automatically meets NFCC 1 and 8. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect, DGG, that's complete nonsense. As Proton says, that would mean any non-free media would automatically pass NFCC, which is clearly ludicrous. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am afraid I disagree, gentlemen; I find your reasoning to be false dichotomy. DGG's reasoning does not grant automatic NFCC pass. I am afraid you seem to have completely disregarded the context. Our subject of discussion is a subject of public interest and a notable episode that in spite of its notability, is not peerless. Text alone can only be used for identification purpose when the text itself is notable or (at least to some extent) unique. (Example of such a case is Harry Potter series, A Series of Unfortunate Events series or Friends series.) Fleet Command (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that's not correct either. The question that needs to be answered per WP:NFCC#8 is "would the omission (of the image) would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article"? And the answer is clearly no, because the image is only telling the reader that the character was held at gunpoint, which can clearly be transmitted by text. Which of course is free, so the image violates WP:NFCC#1 as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • You said:

            "The question that needs to be answered per WP:NFCC#8 is "would the omission (of the image) would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article"? And the answer is clearly no"

            Exactly! That's what Protonk said before and I agreed with him: Presence of rationale but lack of appropriate image. The rest, I disagree.

            In any case, it seems I've said all I have to say. I'm changing my response accordingly and will not engage in further discussion unless there is something new to say.

            Fleet Command (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (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:Ignatius xavier.jpg[edit]

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ignatius xavier.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ignatius xavier (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Orphaned, unexplained, image. If it has a purpose here, it's not clear what it is. In the absence of such, it should go. Rodhullandemu 23:42, 15 July 2010 (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:Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale on grass.jpg[edit]

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:818652 19-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jrpellegrino@peris.com (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Nice pic, but orphaned, and no idea what it is. Maybe move to Commons if uploader can identify it, but this is his/her only edit. There really should be a CSD for images like this. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't upload it, but it's a Ferrari. Somebody on another message board believes it's a 360 Stradale. ----DanTD (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • UPDATE Confirmed, that's exactly what it is. Therefore I'm voting to Transfer to Wikimedia Commons under a new name. ----DanTD (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • UPDATE #2 I've just "un-orphaned the image by posting it in the Ferrari 360 article. All I have to do now is tag it for the commons. ----DanTD (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming it definitely solves one problem, as does un-orphaning it. But I'd love to have the uploader confirm that s/he took and uploaded the photo. 640x480 jpeg @66kb could very well have been pulled off a website. Nothing on tineye but that service is false-negative prone. Protonk (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. Administrator Protonk is smelling another case of license forgery. Do you have any evidence, dear Protonk? Fleet Command (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The file was moved from File:818652 19-1.jpg to File:Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale on grass.jpg by Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) at 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 20 July 2010 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_July_15

Leave a Reply