Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 October 14

::Image:{{ucfirst:1919_Civil_War_poster_-_White_Russian_Anti-Semitism_%2839%29_t1919b.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:Image:1919_Civil_War_poster_-_White_Russian_Anti-Semitism_%2839%29_t1919b.jpg|action=delete}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl::Image:{{ucfirst:1919_Civil_War_poster_-_White_Russian_Anti-Semitism_%2839%29_t1919b.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode::Image:{{ucfirst:1919_Civil_War_poster_-_White_Russian_Anti-Semitism_%2839%29_t1919b.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Ludvikus ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Ludvikus|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• user reuploaded duplicate image for no apparent reason, thus loosing the original uploader from history. See :Image:WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg for original. --Irpen 19:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Not true. The uploaded image is identical. The image history page can, and should be preserved. What I've done is restored the true Title/Name of the Poster as it is given on the cite. The prior editor improperly gave it a less accurate name. --Ludvikus 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• The correct image name (of this anti-Semitic propaganda poster) is, should be & remain, : "1919: Civil War poster: White Russian anti-Semitism (39)"
• White Russian poster "original" is at [http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/photo/t1919b.htm].
• That's one of the two sources of the Poster. It's said to be Trotsy at the age of 39, in 1919.
• This is the title of the Poster at this Internet Archive: "1919: Civil War poster: White Russian anti-Semitism (39)" --Ludvikus 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Here's the List of Images at the Archive: [http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/photo/].

::--Ludvikus 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Name of the file means nothing. What matters is the caption in the article. By copying the exact image found by another user and uploading it yourself under a different name you violate the GFDL license among other things. --Irpen 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know what you're talking about. This is a 1919 Public Domain poster of the entity that does not even exit anymore (the "White Russians" who were defeated by the Bolsheviks). I've also asked for the prior image to be deleted because of duplication. This image is known to be Antisemitic and insulting to the Jews just like "Stupid polack" is to the Poles. And your desire, or insensitivity, to remove that tag "anti-Semitic" is wrong, inaccurate, and a distortion of the truth. --Ludvikus 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::Image:{{ucfirst:Kingchad.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:Image:Kingchad.jpg|action=delete}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl::Image:{{ucfirst:Kingchad.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode::Image:{{ucfirst:Kingchad.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Saiid ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Saiid|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• If this image is legitimate, it's falsely tagged. If the uploader really created it himself, then it's original research (the subject died over 400 years ago - uploader's impression doesn't belong in an encylopedia). Picaroon (t) 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::Image:{{ucfirst:Isps_gate.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:Image:Isps_gate.jpg|action=delete}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl::Image:{{ucfirst:Isps_gate.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode::Image:{{ucfirst:Isps_gate.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Sfacets ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Sfacets|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• See Image talk:Isps gate.jpg. I am nominating this at the uploader's request since I have protected the image page as a result of what I and at least one other admin perceives as a disingenuous attempt to have this image deleted.  But|seriously|folks  08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Keep as image appears useful and the only individual advocating its deletion is not credible. -- But|seriously|folks  08:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Delete all "self-created" images by this user This is a dilemna. The image does serve a very real purpose in the article (or did until it's recent removal). However the uploader has now claimed to have used a fraudulent license, giving what he now says are false statements about it on a couple of occasions over the last two years. That is relevant because he has apparently used fraudulent licenses in the past on several other images. So while this individual image is useful, I'm afraid the best solution for Wikipedia is to delete all of the images that this editor has claimed to have self-created and is unable to provide proof of creation for (such as other photos from the same time period, different sized images, or drafts of drawings). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:Keep for now, pending resolution of related images, per this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::The problem I have with that resolution is it gives contributors a way to revoke their GFDL license if they want to take their ball and go home. -- But|seriously|folks  19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

:::I agree that that is a problem. I'd be willing to keep this image but delete the rest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

:Delete: As I previously mentioned, I didn't know at the time that it wasn't my image. I don't appreciate the above individuals tarnishing my reputation here on Wikipedia with their baseless slander. It was an honest mistake - it's as simple as that. The previous images Will_Beback mentions above refer to images I uploaded at a time I was unsure about copyright laws followed by Wikipedia, and you will note that I didn't persue the matter once I became aware of the issue. The reason I want the image deleted is in fact to insure that all images I have uploaded to WP are mine to distribute. Sfacets 16:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::The explanation on the image talk page does not read like an honest mistake. It provides a solid basis for concluding that you are not being honest. You uploaded the image in 2005. You said that you realized shortly after you uploaded the image that it was not yours. However, in 2007, you were still insisting that the image was yours. Even if we accept your current position and that you made an honest mistake when you initially uploaded it, it certainly was not an honest mistake when you insisted the image was yours long after you knew it was not. -- But|seriously|folks  19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

::I share with Sfacets the desire to ensure that the images he has uploaded are his to distribute, or are otherwise properly licensed. Based on his "error" and inconsistent responses, we can't be sure that he correctly recollects which are his and which he obtained elsewhere. I think a week should be enough time for him to provide evidence, of the types mentioned above, that shows he has actually created the images he's claimed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

::: I suggest there is a very simple test of Sfacets' ownership. Sfacets must submit this and the other related uploads at a resolution at least four times (linear) greater, ie. at about 1600x1200 pixels. -- RHaworth 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with User:Butseriouslyfolks, from above. The image is useful, and the text of GFDL is quite clear: However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain under GFDL forever. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

:comment - you are missing the point, only copyright holders can release an image under GFDL. Sfacets 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

::According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Isps_gate.jpg&diff=113456985&oldid=29896733 this link], the person who created the image is the one who released it under the GFDL. -- But|seriously|folks  00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Again, I have to agree with User:Butseriouslyfolks here. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

Delete. The image is replaceable. If the copyright holder is Sfacets, then we should honor his request that this image is deleted. If the copyright holder is not Sfacets, then we have no right to keep the image. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, our policy is that GFDL licensing is irrevocable, so that we are not beholden to editors who become disgruntled and demand that their images be deleted. -- But|seriously|folks  06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Users donate images to us, and out of respect for them we ought to take down their images if three conditions apply:

:::# The donating user requests deletion

:::# The image is replaceable

:::# No other users have made significant contributions to the image.

:::This is already in policy as :meta:Right to vanish and WP:CSD#G7. This image meets all 3 criteria necessary, and is low resolution on top of that. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

::::Right to vanish clearly does not apply. "Work on the project - Your work, including 'signatures' (text indicating your authorship of comments) on all but your own user and talk pages, will usually not be changed or removed. To change these would be a major source of disruption." G7 is not applied that way to images. Images are rarely edited once they are uploaded, so that criteron doesn't make sense. This image is in use, and the article in which it is used has been edited by many editors. The image was licensed for our use, and we have a right to keep using it. -- But|seriously|folks  02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::If Sfacets is the copyright holder, then yes, we have a right to keep it. But, out of courtesy and respect for contributors, we ought to take down their content if the 3 criteria above apply. We don't have to, but it is the right thing to do.

:::::You're right that CSD G7 as it is written is too broad for application to images. But, when combined with the replaceability of this image, on top of the low quality of the image and the doubt of who actually owns the copyright, this image should be deleted. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::I understand and respect your point of view. It makes a lot of sense. If this were an image of the user or his cat, I would agree with you 100%. My concern is not this image. It is the hypothetical user who contributes 2500 useful, properly licensed images and then decides to retire from Wikipedia because of some perceived affront, demanding that all of his 2500 images be deleted. Would it be reasonable to tell him that we will delete his lo-res images, but that we are keeping the good ones? Let me ask something that hasn't been fully explored, though: You say this image is replaceable. Is there another one that is readily available? I'd be happy to delete this image myself if we had another one right now to take its place. -- But|seriously|folks  04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::It would take a very long time to delete 2500 images because each would have to be reviewed to determine replaceability. You would be hard pressed to find an admin who's going to personally evaluate each image and delete it on the basis of replaceability and lack of other users' contributions. Thus, the sheer number of images would drag out the deletion process, and there would be plenty of time to transition to other images. But yes, in the end I would say that we should delete most of the images based on the 3 criteria above.

:::::::Now, if a user decided to request deletion of all their images, and then say it was OK to undelete them, sanctions against that user might be considered for disruptive behavior. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

::It is replaceable - someone just needs to take another photo. Sfacets 04:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:::How about if you do that and end the controversy. Make sure to upload it in high resolution to help prove it's yours, and not just something you found off some web site. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I could, however the location is in India - a bit far for me right now ;) Sfacets 05:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, this is a good thought. Do you know someone there who could take a new picture and upload it? I think that would make everybody happy. And then we could delete your notyour picture. :-) -- But|seriously|folks  05:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any one who could take a photo - but this shouldn't stop this image from being deleted. Sfacets 06:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

----

Image deleted. I am going to assume good faith here and believe the uploader is not the copyright holder as he/she says. -Nv8200p talk 19:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

: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.