Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 November 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 11 November 13 >

November 12[edit]

Image:MH_Angry_2.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 debate was: Delete --Dreadstar † 04:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MH_Angry_2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Matthewhlme (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic -Nard 01:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No conceivable future use. Orphaned user created image. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:55, 12 November 2008 (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.

Image:Voterseyeview.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 debate was: Keep --Dreadstar † 04:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Voterseyeview.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:Voterseyeview.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).
  • Unrealistic representation of the Butterfly ballot as viewed by a voter 93.97.221.15 (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any basis for these claims. The image is valid and adds insight to the article. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing wrong with it. -Nard 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have fixed the image page which previosuly had no source (although it was indicated in the upload edit that it was Gzuckier's own work). Nothing wrong with it; we should assume good faith as to the license unless proved otherwise. A fair use tag would be appropriate if this does not pass because the ballot is not reproducible any more. INTGAFW (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (duh). i am not a voter in palm beach and did not see the native ballot in its wild habitat. however the sample ballot was reproduced in the newspaper; it was clearly explained that for voting purposes it would be found folded along the lines so that the center was depressed into the trough where the punches were to be inserted. this was not hard to replicate. placing it thence upon a table of normal working height, the parallax problem widely referred to was apparent, and the photograph proved it not to be an optical illusion. despite the claims on the talk page that "the ballots were not laid out flat, but elevated so that standing in front of them, you are looking more or less directly down on the ballot", which is physically impossible in Euclidean space. the degree of parallax obviously varies with the height of the voter; this is from eye level of a normal 5 foot 9 person and a normal working height counter. it seems unlikely that the height would be greatly different, so that the voter had to punch the hole with the ballot at hip level or such; the normal working height of counters is chosen so that it's optimal for most people for things like punching holes in ballots. despite the complaints in the talk page the ballot in the photo is folded into a channel because that is how it was described in the paper, and in every explanation of the parallax effect that it produced. are the objectors suggesting that in fact this is not correct, the actual ballots were flat and not folded, and a substantial portion of the voting public are incapable of the minimal requirements of walking without bumping into things? if so, an explicit statement would be nice. the alternate photo provided by the sun sentinel and linked to on the talk page confirms this folding, rather than disproving it, and gives a fine representation of what the ballot would have looked like, had it been hung vertically on the wall at eye level, which it was not. i can't help but feel that the criticism on the talk page and this attempt to banish it have political motivation. had i realized that giving sufficient source for a photo required a detailed description of what went into its creation rather than just a statement that I took it, i would have spent the past few years tagging pretty much every self-taken photo for deletion, due to "insufficient sourcing". or have i mistakenly stumbled into wikihow? for those with further sourcing needs, the camera involved was an HP photosmart c5340A which they are welcome to name a price for if they wish to purchase it from me, as at this date the used camera places won't even take it. this is why the depth of field sucks so that the print at the far end of the ballot is fuzzy, but it ought to be apparent that this is not what the debate is about. if anybody would like to reproduce this image in a better reproduction, i enthusiastically endorse such an effort. otherwise, this is a clear visual aid to an event/phenomenon which very likely quite literally changed the course of world history during our lifetime, and i think its significance overrules any quibbles about my admitted lack of photographic competence. any other info needed? Gzuckier (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (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.

Image:Galuppi.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 debate was: Delete

Image:Galuppi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Meladina (notify | contribs).
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.

Image:GNU Linux.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GNU Linux.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Conan (notify | contribs).
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.

Image:WIAS.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WIAS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Schahinap (notify | contribs).
  • Unused advertisement/business card for "Wireless Intelligent Answer Sheet" and Shahin Amiriparian Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Orphaned, advert, can't think of a context in which this image would be useful. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:59, 12 November 2008 (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.

Image:WLG3.svg[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WLG3.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shandris (notify | contribs).
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.

Image:Washington DC colours.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Washington DC colours.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tiburon (notify | contribs).
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.

Image:Wastwater Twist.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wastwater Twist.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Artivist (notify | contribs).
  • Unused image of book cover (?) drink label (?) hoax (?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2008 (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.

Image:Watching truth.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Watching truth.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dilk85 (notify | contribs).
  • Unused and orphaned image from an article that was deleted February 19, 2006. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2008 (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.

Image:One inch punch bruce lee 1964aug2 long beach.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 debate was: - Delete - Fails NFCC#1, for the used articles it can be replaced by a free image (not necessarily Bruce). Fails NFCC#8 for some others - basically the image could be anyone and noone has argued how it significantly increases reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:One inch punch bruce lee 1964aug2 long beach.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shawnc (notify | contribs).
  • This non-free image is used in 3 different articles to illustrate the concept of a One inch punch, which could be illustrated by a freely licensed image (to be found or created). Damiens.rf 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep On the article Bruce Lee it cannot be replaced, on account of him being dead. The fact it was him who introduced it to the wider world would again make it irreplaceable on the article One inch punch of that name, in Punch (strike) it is not essential and should probably be removed. --Nate1481 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree - we can use words (and verifiable sources) for explaining Bruce Lee introduced the One inch punch to the wider world, and use a free image for helping in explaining what a "one inch punch" is. --Damiens.rf 17:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't think the picture is very helpful as it doesn't actually illustrate the one inch punch well because, of course, it is a still image so can't show the movement that made the technique special. A textual description of the punch is adequate without the illustration. As a generic illustration of Bruce Lee it is easily replaceable. Might be a case to keep it in One inch punch if it is the only picture available of Bruce Lee executing the technique Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use on One inch punch is more tenuious but the use on Bruce Lee is not, If you can find a free image of Lee doing a one inch punch fine, but as it stands I think it is likely irreplaceable. It could be said of many things that they could be described, but as the cleche goes 'a picture is worth a thousand words' --Nate1481 10:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel it is the other way round - more useful on One inch punch than Bruce Lee. The picture illustrates the one inch punch whereas Bruce Lee is not "most famous" for the one inch punch, far from it. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 11:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely replaceable by any martial arts expert demonstration. Probably even more useful would be a short video demonstration of it. It's not necessary to any purpose in any article where this image is used to show Bruce Lee involved in the demonstration of the punch. The image is low quality, and there's no way to even identify Bruce Lee in the images if someone didn't say it was Bruce Lee. In short, a pretty worthless image. It's removal would not in any compromise the reader's understanding of the articles where it is used. Per WP:NFCC #8 regarding significance and #1 regarding replaceability, it therefore should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the image. True that this image is just that - it doesn't illustrate the mechanics of the one-inch punch. However, there are only that many pictures of Bruce Lee in the world left. This is one of his iconic pictures that is readily available. Maybe someone can get proper authorization from the person who owns the image?--Ohnobananas (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2008 (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.

Image:Persumed Izbori 1990.GIF[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 debate was: - No Consensus - This is an editorial dispute about factualness which should be resolved in the article. I do note that the image is still used in the related article...if it where orphaned this debate would end differently - Peripitus (Talk) 10:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Persumed Izbori 1990.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ceha (notify | contribs).
On the second map I was abble to google data (unfortunetly some of the old links are not any more avaible, but they was avabile few years after map was puted on the net). As non-nationalistic parties only won in 3 municipalities (for which the data was avaible when maps were made; Novo Sarajevo, Vareš and Tuzla, and which was sourced on the net), the rest was colored by color of nation which had majority in the municipality. Don't see what why it should be deleted as it was made from data which was avaible on the net in the time of making (some of it is not avaible any more, but some still are), and its deletion would delete some very important information from wikipedia. Maps were on this wikipedia (and some others) in many article for 2 years and nobody founded any inconsiestities. As for original researsh and veriability please see [2]
--Čeha (razgovor) 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, the map still lacks the sources needed to comply with our Verifiability policy.
In your talk page you mentioned your source for stating that non-nationalist parties won in only three municipalities. The 1998 Guide for Journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina booklet, edited in Saravejo by Media Plan, mentions (p. 27) that "in the municipal electios [of 1990, t]he three national parties won absolute or relative majorities in as many of 104 of the then 109 municipalities. Only in Tuzla, Novo Sarajevo and Vareš, former communists and reformists ([SDP & UBSD]) won majority". It repeats (p. 13) that "[in Tuzla] in the 1990 election the parties with left/civic orientation [SDP & UBSD] won".
That leaves us with 104 municipalities in which nationalists won majorities and 3 -Tuzla, Novo Sarajevo and Vareš- for SDP & UBSD predecessors. But what about (& which are) the other 2 (of the 109 total) in which nationalists didn't win majorities ? And do we have clear demographic data to be sure of which nationalist party won each municipality based on that alone ? - Ev (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I realy don't know what about that 2 missing municipalities. Is it possible there is an error there? Because there where 109 municipalities in BiH in 1991, and SDP (former communies and reformists) won elections just in 3 (Vareš, Novo Sarajevo and Tuzla, as sourced), and in the rest nationalistic parties should have won....
As for sourcing I see that is should have been better but I can not understand the way how to do it...
--Čeha (razgovor) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There can always be errors, of course. But without further sources to verify it, that's pure especulation on our part.
As for how to indicate sources, don't worry, we'll work on it toghether in your talk page. :-) Ev (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool:)--Čeha (razgovor) 23:29, 14 November 2008 (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.

Image:PistolKatar02.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 debate was: - Delete as a probable copyvio. I do note that the image is identical to the one here. The page I linked to has metadata saying that it was last updated in Feb 2006. If the uploader tells me how the image got there first I'm happy to undelete (I've dropped a note on his talkpage)- Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PistolKatar02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick19thind (notify | contribs).
  • Image page says it is PD and created by uploader, but there is no camera metadata at the bottom, leading me to doubt that the uploader took this photo. —Politizer talk/contribs 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AGF. I see no reason to assume that Nick19thind couldn't have shot this picture. Metadata would be missing on any picture that didn't come directly from the camera.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Assume Good Faith as mentioned; many photos don't have meta-data because they're processed in photostudio, photoshop, ms paint or anything else. Some people deliberately erase meta-data because their camera's registration number is stored, which means photographs can be traced back to their real identities. Without evidence this isn't his photo, I would strongly endorse keeping it. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 09:11, 17 November 2008 (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.

Image:Taz, The Tasmanian Devil.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. An extra copyrighted image is unnecessary in the article and provides nothing significant. -Nv8200p talk 02:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Taz, The Tasmanian Devil.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Qutezuce (notify | contribs).
  • The look of the character on this image is nearly identical to the image already used in the infobox (Image:Taz.png), so it violates WP:NFCC#3a. – sgeureka t•c 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are joking, right? How are the 2 pictures similar apart from showing Taz? The picture is being used to show how the character has changed over the years and the change is huge. Do you have too much time on your hands so just like to crawl Wikipedia and find stuff to delete. Idiot. --217.201.10.68 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, no personal attacks. They aren't constructive and will not persuade people to retain the image. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two small fair use images in the same article is not so much of a stretch. -Nard 09:39, 15 November 2008 (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.

Image:Matthew_Helme.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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matthew_Helme.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Matthewhlme (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader. -Nard 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal photograph, of no use on WP. Orphaned. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:46, 14 November 2008 (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.

Image:Horlock and Constantine Courts.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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I8 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Horlock and Constantine Courts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by W33nie (notify | contribs).
  • I wish to re-upload this image under my new account. Which is skip88.
Done - commons showing through - Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 18 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_November_12&oldid=1073710278"