Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 November 29

< November 28	November 30 >

November 29

Image:Kat meet&greet.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Borava (notify | contribs). Judging from the image description, this seems to classify as "fancruft" and irrelevant to the subject's biography/career. And, there's already another image like this (Image:Katharinem.jpg) from the same show (American Idol Tour).- Pink moon 1287 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Orangeoflag.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Sanghak (notify | contribs). Superseded by Image:Flag of Orange River Colony.svg. Image is due to be deleted anyway (it was copied from the flags of the world website)- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Mauritius (1923-1968).gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Sanghak (notify | contribs). Copyright violation (The original image can be seen at fotw.net).- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1204025428lho5.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Slim142 (notify | contribs). unused, uploader created one speedied page only —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Bahamas 1964-1973.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Sanghak (notify | contribs). Copyright violation (The original image can be seen at [1]).- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More copyright violations from Sanghak

Sorry, but I don't have time to tag all of these images and the pages they're linked to.

Would it be possible to prevent this user from uploading anything else? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more:

I don't know where Image:Flag of Barbuda.jpg came from, but I'm fairly certain it wasn't made by Sanghak. Here is an example of his own work: Image:Afghanistan Colonial Flag.gif -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:66 IMG 7325 copy.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Ktotheathryn (notify | contribs). Watermarked and obviously taken from bamargera.com. Copyright violation —Ocatecir 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aliiiiive.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Peter Dess (notify | contribs). OR, AU, Vanity pic for speedy deleted article [2] -- BigDT 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Laguncularia-racemosa.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Codiferous (notify | contribs). OR, AB Nv8200p talk 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aliiiiive.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Peter Dess (notify | contribs). OR, AU, Vanity pic for speedy deleted article [3] -- BigDT 04:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aliiiiive2.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Peter Dess (notify | contribs). OR, AU, Vanity pic for speedy deleted article [4] -- BigDT 04:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aliiiiive2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Peter Dess (notify | contribs). OR, AU, Vanity pic for speedy deleted article [5] -- BigDT 04:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:723248149 l.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Brian4ellen (notify | contribs). OR, UE, user's only contribution and presumably a vanity pic BigDT 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me n sam.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Drama.queen (notify | contribs). OR, Uploader's only contribution and presumably a vanity pic BigDT 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BD-mariage.jpg (talk | delete)

Also nominating Image:BD-mariage-en.jpg

Uploaded by Rama (notify | contribs). OR, Some time ago, these two images were deleted at IFD, then restored out of process by the uploader, who commented, "Personal image used on user page". As far as I can tell, though, they are not actually used. Further, the licensing tag is invalid. They are tagged as being "free software". But they are not software - they are pictures. Wikipedia is not free webhosting and if the images are not going to be used, there is no reason for them to be hosted here. BigDT 05:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put my images under any licence I wish to. These images are "software" in the sense that they are digital information ; you might not like it, but as long as your point is not challenged in a court, it is no more valid than mine. For your information, images under the GPL are allowed.
These images are linked from my user page (among others), as you could see if you used "What links here".
Numerous images under bogus "fair use" provisions are used on user pages and tolerated, I am quite appalled that I should be pestered over and over about this one.

Rama 08:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get a grip. You aren't being "pestered over and over". You declined to participate in the IFD when the image was deleted months ago, opting to instead simply restore the image yourself. Months later, I have relisted the image with the same concerns, which were never answered before. As for the license you have chosen, if you read the license itself [6], software is defined as including source code, object code, and, if applicable, documentation. An image contains neither source code nor object code. The choice of the license is invalid since you have no ability to grant to anyone any source code or object code, with respect to these images. Further, regardless of the legal aspects (which it is silly and dangerously close to WP:NLT to claim that any assertion is valid until challenged in court), it is misleading at best to use a Wikipedia image copyright tag that starts off with, "This work is free software". As for these images being in use, it would have been helpful if, months ago when you restored the images, that you had pointed this out. I don't even think "what links here" has always worked correctly for images (though I could be mistaken) and usually, nobody looks further than "file links" to see if an image is being used. Personally, if they are being used, I don't have any serious objection to a keep if the license is changed. As for other images with invalid licenses that are out there, as in all things on Wikipedia, when you find them, FIX THEM! BigDT 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images can be said to be a source code (it is human-readable), or an object code (it is a binary). Where have you seen that software has to be executable by itself ? Besides, I hope that you are not going to apply the same sort of pedantic reading on the GFDL, or you'd choke on the idea that images are distributed under this licence.

And if you like fixing things so much, devote your time to so-called "fair use" licences which are truely problematic, and often enough, rather than challenge legal concepts of which you obviously have no precise notion. Rama 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud, please show me anyone anywhere claiming that a stand-alone image is a piece of software or that a stand alone image could be considered source code or object code. As for the GFDL, the D is for "document" and the license acually specifically mentions images as being applicable. BigDT 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking the wrong end of the question : you have to prove me that there is anything problematic with this ; notably, you have to bring reasonable grounds to think that there is a risk that the author of the image (me) could make legal problems against the people who uploaded the image (me) or those who use it (me).

Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the CeCILL is accepted on Commons, which has much more strict policies then en: Furthermore, I am an admin on Commons, so I have come to develop some experience in the field ; not a professional expertise, but something that goes beyond personal grudge and faith-based notions of copyright laws. Rama 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a nice cartoon. Really. I like it. But you're violating WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. And your claim that it constitutes some kind of "source code" is just WP:CB. Sorry, but your Commons adminship super-powers don't amount to much on planet en.wikipedia.org -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown you the definition of software that the CeCILL gives. IANAL. I am a software engineer and the main line of work I am in is document imaging, but I don't claim to be a legal expert. I can say, with great certainty, that an image is not a piece of software. Your willingness not to make trouble for someone using the images is largely irrelevant - we have plenty of images that have been deleted where Wikipedia had permission to use them. Images that are found on "some website" are deleted every day, even though, in at least some cases, the copyright holder is unlikely to care. Creating legal troubles is not really an issue as far as I am concerned and I see no reason to dwell on it. On the other hand, having an image description page that makes a patently false statement is an issue. The image description page claims that this image is a piece of software. It obviously is not, both in common use of the word and in technical use of the word.

I looked at commons:Category:CeCILL and clicked on about 15 images at random and all of them were taken by you, so that's hardly convincing. You were the one who added the CeCILL license to the Commons Copyright tags page [7]. You were the one who created the tag to begin with. [8] Offering unilateral actions as evidence of acceptance is questionable. Does anyone else anywhere claim that CeCILL can be used to license images? BigDT 14:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BettyX wiki.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Enoch22 (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Tagged as pd-self, but the uploader credits "Dan Nash" with creating the image and lists the source website as www.dannash.com. But on the uploader's page, he gives his name as "John Marcus Temple". Presumably, then, the uploader is not actually the author of this image. BigDT 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Astoriadavidgilmour.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Wikioogle=world take over (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) A screenshot from Google Earth used to illustrate the subject of the photo. No way is it fair use to use Google Earth to illustrate some random building. BigDT 05:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's been a long time since I've edited anything on here, but you're right, I uploaded that picture when I was a Wikin00b, so it can be deleted as soon as someone with the autority can do it. Hopefully someone in the area can try to get a better image of it though. Articles without images are barely articles. Wikioogle=world take over 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Insulation and weatherization handbook.pdf (talk | delete)

Uploaded by N3362 (notify | contribs). OR, A PDF file, Wikipedia is not free webhosting BigDT 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Basketball ball.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Ben Tibbetts (notify | contribs). OR, a photo of a basketball incorrectly tagged as PD-ineligible and thus, a CV. BigDT 05:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Matt&Luigi (SMB3).jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by NFAN3 (notify | contribs). Unencyclopedic. Not used in any pages. --Slowking Man 06:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lahorei gate.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Safiuddinkhan (notify | contribs). Orphan Nv8200p talk 11:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PerottetOpusDeisupernumerary.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Walter Ching (notify | contribs). UE,OR. Low-res image of non-notable people—Alecmconroy 11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Condorayperuopusdeimembers.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Walter Ching (notify | contribs). UE,OR. Low-res image of non-notable people—Alecmconroy 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Image:10,000 CHEERED BY CANDY GIFTS.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.—Not a dog 12:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pic is good enough for its purpose of illustrating how the newspaper article appeared. A better photo would be nice but until someone uploads one the existing photo should stay. 67.117.130.181 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poor quality image that has no encyclopedic content. Weregerbil 14:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this is quite possibly the worst quality image I have come across on this site. It adds nothing to the site and should be deleted.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This image has been posted on the Sweetest Day page for months and has been reinserted by several editors. It contains the text of the article and links to many other public domain images and articles related to Sweetest Day (see below). Miracleimpulse 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a dream last night that one of my eyes was bleeding. When I awoke this morning, I could not make heads nor tails of it. I now believe that dream was sent to me as a warning; specifically, as a warning that I would view this image. Words like "horrific" and "palpably torturous" fail to capture the hypnotically low quality of this image. I cannot fathom what the hell this thing is supposed to be adding to the article. I would also recommend to the person who captured this image that he or she ask the librarian how to print from the microfilm reader next time. —ptk✰fgs 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted. This is a content dispute -- resolve it on Talk:Sweetest Day and if the outcome is to not have it on the page, then it will be deleted. howch e ng {chat} 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. The quality of this image is ridiculously horrible and it's just a picture of a newspaper article. There's no real encyclopedic value of the image itself (there might be if the headline itself were notable, such as "Dewey defeats Truman"). howch e ng {chat} 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:12 Founders of Sweetest Day 2.JPEG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Miracleimpulse (notify | contribs). Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. Also orphans. —Not a dog 13:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this image, it's good enough for the way it's used, until someone uploads a better one. ~~No opinion on related (orphaned?) images also nominated.~~ 67.117.130.181 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, keep all for now. They are relevant to an ongoing edit dispute and should be kept around until resolution of that dispute is reached, which could be a while. Also, while the images are terrible, the text descriptions contain transcriptions of the newspaper contents that may have a place in the Sweetest Day article, or could be uploaded to Wikisource for use as references in the article. Note that the ones I looked at were published in 1922 which means they are public domain in the US, and the license tags should be updated accordingly. 67.117.130.181 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with you now. I hadn't realized the extent of this edit dispute, and thought these were all simply orphans (see list below). Perhaps admins with more "image-issue" experience can help sort this out? Not a dog 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also included in this nomination is:

Let's include all the Sweetest Day images which have been nominated for deletion. This nomination is clearly an attempt to circumvent the dispute process and manage information on the Sweetest Day page. Every image should be retained. Miracleimpulse 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found many duplicates of these same images with simply a differnet file extension (JPG v. jpg), and other of the same topic that are also just camera phone shots of a newspaper article from a bad angle. All orphaned, and from the same contributor. See all here. Not a dog 01:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious attempt to manage information on the Sweetest Day page. These are the only images available of the Founders of Sweetest Day anywhere. It looks like Wikipedia is infected with industry spindoctors to me. Do not delete Miracleimpulse 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make wild accusations. These images are not being used in any page, and are of very low quality, and are being considered for deletion in accordance with policy. Wikipedia's servers are not free archive space. Not a dog 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poor quality images with no encyclopedic content. Only used for WP:OR edit warring; they do not improve the article where they get repeatedly posted. Weregerbil 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedic content is the text from the newspaper articles depicted in the scans. That text is transcribed in the image descriptions and is legitimate reference material for the article, and should be preserved. Also, since they were published in a big newspaper, they are not OR. Miracleimpulse I think is overreacting a bit to the wiki process and is not used to it, but is doing good work on the article and his substantive points about the article subject are mostly valid even if his style leaves something to be desired. 67.117.130.181 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Weregerbil was calling the images WP:OR, he was referring to some of the edits that have been made to Sweetest Day as WP:OR with these images being referenced as some sort of "proof" of the statements being made in these edits.--Isotope23 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the transcription of the photo's copy is worth preserving, then Wikipedia:Commons might be the place for them. Orphaned images don't belong here (as I understand it). Not a dog 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The images are of such low quality that they would detract from any article they were included in.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Calling this a content dispute isn't necessarily accurate. Most of these images are not in the article by consensus and the dispute is one editor not accepting consensus.--Isotope23 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Keep. New images have been requested from The Cleveland Public Library where these photos are archived. These photos have historic value and should be retained until the improved images can be uploaded. Miracleimpulse 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I see the purpose of keeping orphaned images that are not in an article around, pending new images. When you receive the new images you could always upload them and create an Wikicommons page for these so they are actually linked somewhere and not orphans. Right now the current images serve no purpose as they are not linked anywhere and indeed are not really suitable quality even for a Wikicommons gallery.--Isotope23 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response All of the images are currently linked to the Sweetest Day article through the two images which remain on the page. A WikiCommons gallery is not necessary. The purpose of having these one-of-a-kind photos which are not available anywhere except here on Wikipedia is to eventually incorporate them into a comprehensive article on Sweetest Day which is not a promotional tool such as the article is now. Miracleimpulse 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well for starters, linking one image to another image that is in an article is completely the wrong way to display this and doesn't mean these images are in any way linked to the Sweetest Day article; it leaves the images as orphans. The correct way is to set up a WikiCommons Gallery, so I would argue that it is necessary. Second, Wikipedia is not a file hosting service for these images. I point you to the text where it explicitly states "If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia." Finally, consensus, as can be seen on the talk page, is against these images being in the article. Consensus also appears to be that this article is not a promotional tool, but is a reasonably balanced and well written article based on the sources that exist at this time. The version right now certainly is better than all of the previous versions that have occupied the namespace. The hope of someday having a bloated image gallery in the article isn't realistic based on the consensus on the talk page.--Isotope23 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all with no predjudice against Miracleimpulse uploading higher quality images at a later date and organizing them into a WikiCommons gallery linked to the Sweetest Day article.--Isotope23 21:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Many of these images have text of articles attached to them. None of the images are available anywhere else online or otherwise. The images represent a large amount of effort by the only editor who has added factual information to the Sweetest Day article since the dispute began. These images and articles contain information which is posted in the public interest. I have requested that Addhoc reopen the cabal case. Retain all images. Miracleimpulse 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please vote only once. Please read the link Isotope provided above about Wikipedia not being a hosting service. Further, your claim that "none of the images are available anywhere else" simply isn't true, since you have your own online gallery of them here. This is not a content disupte. These are low quality, orphaned images. The policy is quite clear on this. Not a dog 22:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images are only orphaned because other editors (who never edited the Sweetest Day page before these images were added) insist on blocking them. Why would anonymous editors continually evict these images which contain a vast amount of information on the true origins of Sweetest Day from the Sweetest Day article. Hmmm.... Miracleimpulse 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, perhaps becuase having 20 grainy low-quality images of newspaper articles is not of encyclopedia value. We can discuss and cite what is in the articles, without the need of these poor quality images. Again, I point your attention to the reason these were nominated: "Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. Also orphans." The primary reason is that they are of extremely low quality. Their content, honestly, is quite irrelevant for this discussion. If you posted an image of the Declaration of Independence of similar poor quality, I would nominate that for deletion as well. If you get "better" images, cool. Then put them on WIkicommons. But these gotta go. Not a dog 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these images don't "contain a vast amount of information on the true origins of Sweetest Day", they contain extraneous information not relevent to the main article. Most of them are a historical curiosity at best. How, for example, does this add to the article?--Isotope23 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. These images are grainy and blurry. 2. Individual pics of the non-notable founders of Sweetest Day are unneeded. 3. Putting the full text of article in the image description page is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not the place to host these pictures. --Transfinite 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Founders of Cleveland's Sweetest Day are not non-notable. The full text of the article is extremely helpful in understanding what really happened according to the newspaper printed at the time of the event. The image referenced by Isotope clearly shows the date of the 4-page Sweetest Day section published in The Cleveland Plain Dealer one week prior to the 2nd Sweetest Day Promotional Event. Sweetest Day has never occurred as an observance or a holiday without first being promoted by industry. This fact needs to be detailed in the Sweetest Day article. Miracleimpulse 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say "We can discuss and cite what is in the articles," but this has not happened thus far. For example, the image of Vera Sissons, first queen of Sweetest Day. This image has been edited out of the article repeatedly by various anonymous editors. The image clearly shows that The Sweetest Day in the Year Committee used the plight of Ms. Sissons (she was 82 years old and lived at The Home for Aged Women) to promote candy sales. The image was published one week before the 2nd Sweetest Day Promotion, which was October 14, 1922. Many of the images demonstrate the promotional tactics of the Candy Industry in creating Sweetest Day. The tactics were to create newsworthy events which could be reported by local media in the days and weeks before the scheduled date of the event. Another example: when the candy industry gave away over 20,000 boxes of candy prior to the first Sweetest Day promotion. The candy industry relentlessly exploited the plights of orphans, poor people and even wounded soldiers in order to increase sales of candy. This information is what is offered through these photos, and this is the information being blocked from the current Sweetest Day article by various anonymous editors. Miracleimpulse 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are cited all the time as sources (if consensus holds that the information held therein is notable for inclusion). That does not mean that a grainy, skewed, and poorly lit image of such an article should be included as well (let alone housed on Wikipedia's servers). Once again, this debate is over the quality of the images, not necessarily the accuracy of their content. (BTW, your claim of "relentless exploitation" is just the kind of point-of-view pushing that we try to avoid here). Not a dog 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Cabal Case has been reopened by Addhoc so further conversation on the deletion of these images is unnecessary. All images should be maintained until a resolution is reached through Mediation. Miracleimpulse 02:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "used the plight"? "exploited the plights of orphans, poor people and even wounded soldiers"? I think Miracleimpulse's comments above show what these images are for: blatant POV pushing. These images seem like a backdoor to introduce Miracleimpulse's POV to the Sweetest Day article. Anyway, if your local library has The Plain Dealer on microfilm, you can look at the sources yourself, which are cited in the Sweetest Day article. I see no need to put them on Wikipedia. --Transfinite 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Looks like he already tried the POV fork route: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sweetest Day Hoax . Not a dog 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploit was the exact word used by The New York Times to describe the candy industry's promotion of Sweetest Day. The headline read To Exploit Gift-Giving. This fact was edited out of the Sweetest Day article by Isotope. In 1922, the candy industry promoted Sweetest Day and Candy Day throughout America in many cities including Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit, New York City and Chicago. Sweetest Day has always been promoted through exploitation, deception, obfuscation, verisimilitude and sock puppetry. These are the facts. It is not my POV. What is POV about the article are the false statements sourced to promotional websites which the anonymous editors maintain in the Sweetest Day article. An encyclopedic article about Sweetest Day would not contain these promotional statements. Maybe this is why Encyclopedia Britannica has never published an article about Sweetest Day. Miracleimpulse 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this thread is about the proposed deletion of images due to low quality...Not a dog 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just when I thought my day couldn't possibly get worse, I find out that these dozen or so images actually exist at Wikipedia. I am not particularly interested in the content dispute about whether "Sweetest Day" is a hoax or not. What is painfully clear is that these images are of egregiously low quality. I can't think of the last time I saw a photograph this poor. Any of these images can only detract from an article, and we really, honestly, have no use for images so severely lacking in focus, color, resolution, and composition. These are so appallingly bad as to be downright insulting. —ptk✰fgs 05:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are feeling so bad ptk✰fgs. Maybe if you buy a homeless person some candy you will feel better. Miracleimpulse 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all orphans immediately as per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. While I am sensitive to Miracleimpulse's point, these images really are of atrocious quality, and regardless, orphan photos are always deleted anyway. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the anonymous editors here might be pushing a POV of their own. All this debate over an article that's only 3 paragraphs long...what's really going on here. Miracleimpulse 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're putting these pictures that are not used anywhere on Wikipedia up for deletion, as they are orphaned and being deleted in accordance to the fact that Wikipedia is not a file storage site.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all of the above reasons.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad form Řÿūłóñģ. Removing comments from a discussion page is very uncool. Are you desperate or what? These images are all involved in mediation and should be identified as such. Please leave my comments alone! Miracleimpulse 08:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between comments and tagging each image with a "DO NOT DELETE" thing. People will see the discussion here and not need to be blinded with a red alert warning.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now void due to removal of comments by several anonymous editors. The Mediation Cabal Case has been reopened. Retain all images. Miracleimpulse 08:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Myself (I am not anonymous) and Terrence Ong (also not anonymous) removed your spamming of this Images for deletion with requests that every image be kept with a warning saying there's a dispute at an article. You accuse registered (not anonymous) editors of working against you in every page possible.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging each image with the following:

Alert! This image is involved in an ongoing content dispute on the Sweetest Day page. Do not delete for any reason. Miracleimpulse 14:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is not the way to do this. It is only disruptive to this process of solely deleting images.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admittedly, I only examined two of the many images nominated here, but those two were so poor in quality that I can't imagine the others would be that much better. Frankly, I find their quality is so embarassing that if I had created them, I would ask for their deletion. Miracleimpulse, if these images are so important, find a way to scan to photograph these so that they are satisfactory, & upload the improved images. -- llywrch 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted. These images are ridiculously low quality. A scan of the newspaper picture (print the microfiche out and then scan it) would be better than a photo of it from a weird angle. howch e ng {chat} 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nick1.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Lucky pierre100 (notify | contribs). OR, vanity pic. User's only contributions were uploading this image and using it for vandalism.- BigDT 14:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Piyashini.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gopeasem (notify | contribs). OR, user's only contribution, presumably a vanity pic- BigDT 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Essex_and_Kent_Scottish2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by GENERALFISHER (notify | contribs). OB by Image:Essex_and_Kent_Scottish2.gif—ccwaters 15:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lsdiagram.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Xiliquiern (notify | contribs). Redundant (Already existing better image.)—xiliquiern ^Talk 16:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this file, and fully support its deletion ASAP. It's just taking up disk space. -xiliquiern ^Talk 16:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John Tsombikos.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Bigjuicy (notify | contribs). That's not John Tsombikos, John Tsombikos is a young person—AW 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kipling-wall.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Kareeser (notify | contribs). Orphaned, image replaced with artificial graphic, see Kipling (TTC)—Kareeser|^Talk! 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Islington-wall.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Kareeser (notify | contribs). Orphaned image, has been replaced with artificial graphic, see Islington (TTC)—Kareeser|^Talk! 18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yann_Langue.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Yann Langue (notify | contribs). Orphaned and Unencyclopedic — Cybergoth 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giffnockpanorama.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Coolmark18 (notify | contribs). Contains a watermark/copyright notice in the image itself, in violation of Wikipedia:Image use policy.—Cynical 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pmcd1981.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Defomd (notify | contribs). OR, vanity pic, user has few contributions other than talk pages BigDT 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STRAUB 4.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dnwilliams (notify | contribs). OR, a scaled up version of Image:Straub.jpg, but in that version, the uploader said that it was a publicity photo. It is thus doubtful that PD-self is a correct tag. As the image has no discernable source, it does not qualify for fair use, either. BigDT 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OMNR Org chart.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Loimere (notify | contribs). OR, tagged as PD-US, though the source is actually the government of Ontario. Ontario is not a part of the US. BigDT 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Indexpo.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gruk (notify | contribs). UE, Image is one of several that appears to have been uploaded to provide publicity for a non-notable model.—Robotman1974 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Indexpo2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gruk (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Image is one of several that appears to have been uploaded to provide publicity for a non-notable model.—Robotman1974 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nepo.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gruk (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Image is one of several that appears to have been uploaded to provide publicity for a non-notable model.—Robotman1974 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nepo2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gruk (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Image is one of several that appears to have been uploaded to provide publicity for a non-notable model.—Robotman1974 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nepo3.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gruk (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Image is one of several that appears to have been uploaded to provide publicity for a non-notable model.—Robotman1974 00:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dreamorg.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gruk (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Image is one of several that appears to have been uploaded to provide publicity for a non-notable model.—Robotman1974 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ekbas.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Gruk (notify | contribs). UE, OR, Image is one of several that appears to have been uploaded to provide publicity for a non-notable model.—Robotman1974 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting any of the picture from the series above, that I uploaded. Erotica is now part of the western culture and should be respected. We all should be grateful to the fact that Ms Nepomenko agreed to share her tasteful pictures with Wikipedia.--Gruk 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all from the series above. They are all orphans and Wikipedia is not a photo hosting service. I support the nominator in that the images are unencyclopedic also. -Nv8200p talk 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Nv8200p. I'm not sure they are unencyclopedic per se, but they are orphans and this isn't a file host.--Isotope23 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They are orphans because somebody maliciously broke the links. They are high-qualiy pictures.--Gruk 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since he set up his Wikipedia account in October, Gruk has done nothing except upload images of a model called Iryna Nepomenko and insert them into Wikipedia articles, often in places that are highly inappropriate. I can only assume that Gruk is somehow associated with the website ekwuinox.com, to which all these photos are attributed (the site isn't even active yet, which seems to support this theory). There is nothing notable about this model, and nothing encyclopaedic about the images. They should all be deleted. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 14:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The statement according to which I have done nothing else than uploading pictures of Ms Nepomenko is false. Please check my list of contributions. I hereby declare that I do not have any kind of business relationship or of any other nature with Ms Nepomenko. --Gruk 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And I provided you with a link so you can check for yourself. You have uploaded twenty images so far: Image:Mastin.jpg, Image:Ekbas.jpg, Image:Dreamorg.jpg, Image:Nepo3.jpg, Image:Nepo2.jpg, Image:Nepo.jpg, Image:Indexpo2.jpg, Image:Indexpo.jpg, Image:Peephole.jpg, Image:Lesstop.jpg, Image:Bikenu.jpg, Image:BuoyIK.jpg, Image:Biki.jpg, Image:Faceuk.jpg, Image:Ekwu05.jpg, Image:Ekwu04.jpg, Image:Ekwu03a.jpg, Image:Ekwu02a.jpg, Image:Ekwu06.jpg, Image:Ekwu01.jpg. You refer to Iryna Nepomenko in the summary of every single one of these images. You have placed images of this woman exposing her genitals in various inappropriate articles including Swimsuit, Watermelon and Laughter. Wikipedia is not a suitable place for this obsession of yours. Please take it somewhere else. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I think all the remaining images of Ms. Nepomenko that have been uploaded by this user should be removed from whatever articles they're in and deleted as well. As it seems they were only added for promotional reasons, any benefit they can provide to articles on Wikipedia is highly questionable. Robotman1974 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this picture better? Picture of a non-notable model in Wiki Commons since 9 June 2006. added by user:Gruk - inlined image done by --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

i fully agree that some of my images are placed in extremely inappropriate places by Gruk, the rest of your talk sounds stupid and offensive... i also confirm Gruk has no relationship to me or www.ekwuinox.com... "nothing notable about this model" & "this woman exposing her genitals" by Sakurambo and "publicity for a non-notable model" by Robotman1974, did you mean the genitals of, say, very notable Gisele Bundchen would be a match to your taste, how notable should a model be... very lame argumentation, indeed... and isn't it wikipedia rules that require the reference for the image source/origin? well, i don't really need neither publicity, nor promotion of any kind... so to close this debate i withdraw my permission for using any of my images to illustrate any wikipedia entry... gruk, or anyone who has the authority to... please immediately remove/delete all of my images... best to all, iryna nepomenko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.159.246.40 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Given this statement by Ms Nepomenko, please delete the pictures, immediately. She sent me a mail and I confirm she is the author of the statement above.
  It is regretable to see that there are still very many people around unable to distiguish high-quality nudes from rude pictures. I have now to seriously consider whether I keep contributing to Wikipedia. Regards,--Gruk 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request - guys, you still "provide publicity for a non-notable model", i strongly request for deletion (complete removing) of any personal info of mine (name, site name, comments, links etc) from this page and any other page of wikipedia.org, i also would like to let you know this user http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Iryna_Nepomenko should not be associated with me, i never create any account on wikipedia and have a doubt it's my namesake... regards, iryna nepomenko