Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< November 6 November 8 >

November 7[edit]

File:STANDARD.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⚡ 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:STANDARD.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jonrev (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Removed as replaceable fair use, and challenged. This low-resolution non-free image's purpose in life is to illustrate the final torch/oval Amoco logo with "Standard" lettering. However, the same concept is illustrated via a free image with File:Bpstandarddurand.jpg, which contains the desired symbol on a sign, thus causing the non-free image to fail WP:NFCC#1. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The gas station photo is no substitute in regards to a comparison of the three 'torch & oval' logos Standard/Amoco had over the years as the Standard sign is in a very small part of the entire photo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That supposedly "free" image is not so. Taking a photo of a copyrighted logo is a derivative work and if it was used to depict the logo (which the description suggests) it would not be eligible under the de minimis principle. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are we going to delete all logos that are also found on storefonts and use panorama images instead? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As the Standard/Amoco logo has evolved over the years and there were three 'torch & oval' logos in Standard/Amoco's history. All are equally important. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not about the importance of the logo. No one is contesting the importance of the logo. It's that we have a free photo of the same thing in the field, and therefore we don't need this non-free image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I thought I stated above, the free photo is NOT a photo of the logo, it is a photo of a gas station where only a tiny part of the photo is of a vintage Standard sign where you need to magnify the photo to notice it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since the logo image shows the logo way better, and I'm not convinced that the so-called free image is actually that free if it depicts the logo... ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at WT:Logos, where I asked about logos and storefronts, there's an opinion that the storefont image (in this case, a gas station) is non-free because it contains a non-free logo, so the image image:Bpstandarddurand.jpg is therefore non-free, and is incorrectly tagged. Additionally, using the image for it's non-free logo violates de minimus, making it a non-free usage, requiring a NF-rationale. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is the licensing of this related gas station photo at image:Standardgasstation.jpg which is a Chevron station with Standard Oil of California signs. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the opinion at WT:Logos, it appears to be non-free because it contains the non-free logo for Standard-Chevron on the pricepost... especially if it is used to illustrate the Chevron-Standard logo. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not make a deletion argument based on replaceability; a photo whose aim it is to depict the logo cannot be said to legally include the logo by a de minimis argument, even if the logo is very small in the photo. I would, however, delete because the logo is almost identical to the one immediately above it in the article, raising a violation of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the two logo, the only similarity between the two is they are both torch and oval designs. The colors on the later logo are bolder, the torch is of a more modern design and the word mark is in both boldface and italics, unlike the word mark on the previous logo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section is no longer unreferenced as I finally found through Archive.org the official history of the "torch & oval" logo at [1]. Does this change your opinion? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 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:Doctor's Daughter.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doctor's Daughter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Edokter (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • I'm not convinced that a failure to accurately visualise the Source (which can anyway be decently described in words – "a large glass sphere containing sparkling green and yellow gases" is adequate for the purposes of comprehending the article's subject, even if it is not a 100% perfect literary depiction) would be detrimental to readers' understanding of the topic; therefore, this image fails NFCC 8 in my view, as well as NFCC 1 as outlined above. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 14:18, 7 November 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:Asthar Sheran and Ester with a spaceship.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asthar Sheran and Ester with a spaceship.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wikimol (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • This drawing is a fictionalized representation of Asthar Sheran, the only use of this image is for Universe People, consequently Asthar Sheran is neither the subject of the article (i.e. Universe People or Benda) and is one of many drawings and representations related to Universe People. The image is neither an illustration of the subject or irreplaceable and so a fair use claim is not valid for this purpose. Fæ (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This amateurish drawing is a good and relevant addition to the article. Ashtar Sheran is the leader of the extraterrestrial civilization communicating with Benda and other members of the cult. I don't think he is notable enough for a stand alone article here on Wikipedia, even though he operates a gigantic fleet of spaceships (oh my god, I hope Ashtar doesn't read Wikipedia:Files for deletion, in the past he negotiated peace treaties with Harry Truman and Stalin and I believe he is still the same tough guy), but a redirect could be useful. Moreover, Ashtar and his fellows are the copyright owners of the image and they don't consider respecting copyright law important, at least according to Benda. I would like to obtain Ashtar's permission for using his portrait on Wikipedia, it could be pretty shocking for OTRS volunteers at Commons. In any case, Fæ is right, the image is replaceable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, as an OTRS volunteer I would be happy to verify Ashtar's telepathic channelling of a copyright release direct to my brain rather than traditional email at his convenience. Should Ashtar prefer not to release copyright then no action is required to protect his Master's copyright and the image can be quietly deleted instead. Fæ (talk) 16:10, 7 November 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:New PATH cars.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:New PATH cars.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Floydiandroid (notify | contribs | uploads).
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:Petershumlin.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⚡ 02:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petershumlin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Thematt523 (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • User claims the image, taken from a blog, is originally from a news source and "Therefore, it is free content, and in the public domain." That's not evidence of permission from the copyright holder. It has no non-free use rationale either and the image fails Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created. Hekerui (talk) 21:51, 7 November 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:Tim-tebow-crying.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. Not used in any articles currently so fails WP:NFCC #7. Concern that image was being removed from articles not plausible as it would also fail #1 (no free equivalent) as there were plenty of people at the game and #8 because its omission is not detrimental to understanding of those articles. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tim-tebow-crying.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Rhinoselated (notify | contribs | uploads).
Per the policy, I can't say it better than it's written. Hekerui (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It actually doesn't violate NFCC #8 then, since it significantly increases reader understanding (that Tebow was crying due to the loss) better than free content possibly could. (it is rare that athletes at that level cry due to a loss.) --Rhinoselated (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You showed that it doesn't because you explained in a simple sentence ("that Tebow was crying due to the loss") sufficiently what the image shows, and the image doesn't significantly improve that understanding and its omission doesn't lessen it (especially since we already have a free image of Tebow in the article). Hekerui (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean if the image is deleted, I can incorporate text or other free content to make up for the lack of an image? Because I've already tried that and my text was removed. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep image doesn't need to be deleted, it is being used in articles. I have had to reverse the blankings that have occurred in which this image has been removed but it is legitimately being used --Rhinoselated (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being used in articles is not a reason for keeping this image, especially since you were the one to add them, and re-add them when other users removed them. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to re-add them because other users were removing them. --Rhinoselated (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure if the reasoning listed here is accurate, but this non-free photo has no legitimate use, as it violates WP:MUG and has no purpose except trying to poke fun at Tim Tebow. There are plenty of other free photos available that are more appropriate. Zeng8r (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not violate WP:MUG, since it is not being used out of context (it is being used in the relevant articles), it is not a police mugshot nor a situation where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. --Rhinoselated (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far it appears that there is no consensus as to whether this image violates WP:MUG. So it appears to me that there may be a consensus that it violates NFCC #8, but not WP:MUG and therefore not WP:BLP. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-free, no legitimate use, appears to be used primarily for POV purposes to poke fun at Tebow. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Whoever does this, pleease stop removing the image from articles until the discussion is over. Making the image fail WP:NFCC#7 is underhanded because we are discussing the inclusion in articles. Hekerui (talk) 10:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment The photo was removed from several different articles by several different editors over the past week. (It was uploaded on 10/31.) Rhinoselated, the uploader and inserter, reverted those removals several times. It was Eagles 24/7 who finally came to the conclusion that if this non-free image isn't appropriate for use in any articles, we should go ahead and delete it entirely. There was no conspiracy or funny business with NFCC#7 involved. Zeng8r (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the image to the articles it was removed from. But as an unregistered user I cannot restore the image to Tim Tebow which is currently semiprotected. --128.192.37.11 (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've removed it again, per WP:BLP. Additionally, as I said below, regardless of whether it's included in articles, it's not a useable image for other, more important reasons.--Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The image should be deleted irrespective of whether it's currently used at any articles. It's a non-free image that doesn't add anything beyond what the text already explains. Har har, nice joke, let's get back to working on articles now.--Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#7. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image does not fail NFCC 7. The image does not fail NFCC 7. The image does not fail NFCC 7. See the above point by User:Hekerui. This image has fair-use rationales written for a number of articles and was placed in those articles. The fact that somehow the image has been blanked from the article does not mean that NFCC 7 fails since the image is obviously intended to be used in articles even if it keeps getting removed. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, as of now the image does not literally fail NFCC 7 anyway, since it has been replaced in the articles it was intended to be used in the first place. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus seems to agree that it DOES fail NFCC#8, which is why it's been repeatedly removed, which makes it fail #7 as well. Please stop re-inserting the photo into articles when several objective users have repeatedly determined that it's inappropriate. It looks headed for deletion, anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Several objective users" have also determined that it is underhanded to cause the image to fail NFCC 7 by removing it from articles during a deletion discussion. --70.33.83.220 (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "several objective users" removed it from all articles for non-NFCC#7 reasons before this deletion discussion even started. That's why this discussion started in the first place. IMHO, it's more "underhanded" to continue to reinsert this image "anonymously" and then pretend that a lack of usage is the only reason why it was put up for deletion. Zeng8r (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad your opinion doesn't constitute a consensus. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "a lack of usage" is the reason given by User:Stifle for deletion. So I'm not pretending. Or are you saying Stifle's reasoning shouldn't count? Keep in mind I'm unregistered which means I'm not familiar with how all these processes etc. work on the Wikipedia. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was one reason given, but not the only one. Don't have time to re-list links to other relevant policies, but they've already been linked up the page.
Also, between here in this discussion and in the individual articles and edit summaries, at least a dozen editors have independently opined that the photo is inappropriate and/or should deleted. That's a clear consensus. Zeng8r (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what are the other reason(s)? Clearly, Stifle's post above says "Delete per WP:NFCC#7". That explicitly gives only NFCC 7 (lack of usage) as a reason, where were the others stated? --96.32.181.73 (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned WP:NFCC#8. Hekerui (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Stifle did not mention NFCC #8, only NFCC #7. Again, as an unregistered user I am not very familiar with what goes on here but shouldn't that mean his "delete" reason shouldn't count? --96.32.181.73 (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's sum up the issues here...

  • 1) Multiple users have agreed that the photo was inappropriate for use in the various articles to which it was added. The main reasons mentioned were NFCC#8 (which, by the way, was the very first policy listed and linked at the beginning of this discussion) and WP:MUG (which explains policy regarding the use of photos in biographies of living persons). Looking more closely at the non-free image guidelines, it obviously violates #1 on this list as well since there are plenty of free images of Tebow available, making the use of a screenshot from a TV broadcast unnecessary.
  • 2) If the image has been removed from all articles, it then becomes an orphaned non-free image and should be deleted per NFCC#7. However, that's secondary. It's unused because consensus has decided that it violated other policies first. Even if you re-re-reinsert it into articles, the prior problems remain valid, and it's just going to get removed again. Zeng8r (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the image is obviously not merely for an image of Tebow (since there's already one in the infobox of the Tebow article) it's to show him crying because he lost a game. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is no consensus for the image violating WP:MUG, since Rhinoslated explained above why it does not. And after reading that WP:MUG page I have to agree that this image does not meet any of the criteria to be in violation of WP:MUG. --96.32.181.73 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've mentioned the original uploader of the image who seems to have mysteriously disappeared, have you also read WP:ILLEGIT and/or WP:PANICVOTE? Because as logged here and here, you "both" started regular wiki-editing last month and seem to frequent similar articles involving SEC football, with a specialization in Georgia Bulldog-related edits. Just saying... Zeng8r (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice WP:BITE there. I suspect that Rhinoslated said what he/she had to say and (non-mysteriously) left when he/she was finished with what he/she had to say. Also, hasn't Chuchulain "mysteriously disappeared" as well? --96.32.181.73 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I can't speak for Rhinoslated but I don't see how you conclude that he/she has "specialization in Georgia Bulldog-related edits", but in my case that shouldn't matter, since Georgia Bulldogs were not involved in the game of which the image of Tebow crying was made. In case you aren't aware, Bulldogs fans don't pick sides in Bama/UF games --96.32.181.73 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. If you notice, I didn't report you to the sockpuppet police; I pointed out the relevant policies in the hope that you'd conduct yourself accordingly. In any case, you "two" are the only ones arguing against deleting this photo. Zeng8r (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zeng8r, after looking closely at the two's edit history, I agree with you that 96.32.181.73 and Rhinoslated are the same. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:13, 14 November 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_November_7

Leave a Reply