Meta:Requests for deletion

←Requests and proposals

Requests for deletion

Archives (current)→

This page hosts proposals for page deletion. Before using this page, see the Deletion policy, in particular the criteria for speedy deletion. Also make note of the various criterias for inclusion that Meta-wiki purports; this is not Wikipedia. Place {{RFD}} on the page you are proposing for deletion, and then add an entry in the appropriate section below; any language may be used on this page. After at least two weeks, an administrator will carry out the consensus or majority decision.

Articles that qualify for speedy deletion should be tagged with {{delete}} or {{delete|reason}}, and should not be listed here. (See also speedy deletion candidates.) Images with unknown sources should be tagged with {{no source}} and need not be listed here, either. To request undeletion, see #Requests for undeletion. See Meta:Inclusion policy for a general list of what does not belong on the Meta-Wiki.

Previous requests are archived.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

Pages

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Templates

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Categories

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Images

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Number1.jpg, Serjune.gif, and Genderage.gif

Image:Number1.jpg, Image:Serjune.gif, and Image:Genderage.gif are claimed to be copyrighted by Hitwise without a clear license, so I do not consider them safe to presume GFDL even when uploaded before 2006-12-29.--Jusjih 04:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• As I stated on my user page, Hitwise generated these images specifically for the WMF and they were published in an article I wrote for the July, 2005 Wikimedia Quarto. I hope that the editors on this page are giving due process to images and, at the very least, checking to see what articles are using them before speedily deleting them. They have historical significance and there is no reason that they should be deleted. --Alterego 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  Then what exactly is the license please? GFDL? This page is not for speedy deletion. If you provide a clear license this talk can be closed then.--Jusjih 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  Those images all have explicit copyright statements. --Alterego

  We do not have attribution tag. If it is what it fits, is w:template:attribution the answer?--Jusjih 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  Jusjih, Where is it said that every copyright declaration on meta or in wikimedia must be in the form of a standard "tag"? Hillgentleman 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless the copyright is made consistent with GFDL. It currently says "While you may use the image, you must explicitly note the owner of copyright"; this allows people to copy these images exactly but not to modify them.--Cato 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Copyright != License. All GFDL text and images are copyrighted, otherwise GFDL wouldn't be enforceable. What we need is for the original source to specify the license. The copyright statements on the images don't matter, since it's obviously a new enough image to fall under Berne copyright. Ask Hitwise to GFDL/CC-BY-SA the material and we're fine, otherwise... ~Kylu (u|t) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete he's had loads of time to fix the copyright.--Poetlister 22:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

QuickWMS Screenshot.jpg

Image:QuickWMS Screenshot.jpg is used in a few articles with external links not declaring GFDL-compatible permission.--Jusjih 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• QuickWMS itself (and the screenshoots too ;-)) is LGPL, --Arcy 11:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  We do not have LGPL tag, but we have Template:GPL, but I am unsure of the differences.--Jusjih 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  It seems that everyone who makes any modification must add his or her name to the copyright licence.--Cato 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  You never have to add your name to the license, but if you fail to, the preceding editor would have the rights to your addition, since you wouldn't claim ownership of your edits. Anywho, I added a LGPL template and category, changed the tagging on the page, and added a nice template-style div to the GPL template. I imagine we're cool with the image now? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Seems OK.--Poetlister 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Imagepageexample2.PNG, Imagepageexample3.PNG

Image:Imagepageexample2.PNG & Image:Imagepageexample3.PNG uploaded by User:Odessaukrain

User was warned that the upload commentary was needlessly inflammatory [1] however instead of replying and correcting the issues, he removed my note [2]. I'd be happy, personally, with proper sourcing and licensing and some community support explaining to Odessaukrain that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete if the copyright status of the source novel is not well explained.--Jusjih 00:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep What does my comments have to do with the copyright status of an image? This just shows how ridiculous and empty this entire copyright process is. Kylu never mentioned where I can find these copyright tags.[3] There is no mention on this page where to find these tags.

• Here is some more "inflammatory" comments, Kylu: Is it obvious that I have no respect for your pushy power trips, Kylu?

  Maybe someone can get of their ass and help me add the correct tag? Instead Kylu wants to exert a little authority against other users. He wastes massive amounts of time to threaten me on my page, put two tags on the images I uploaded, and add a deletion request here.

  Jusjih, how long would it take you to add the correct tag?

  Tell me which tag add and I will, then get out of my way and go harass someone else.

  I will let other wikisusers, who have never sat foot in a law classroom play copyright police and harass others, contributing nothing to this project when they do. I simply want to add content to this project. Odessaukrain 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  Review the image upload comments:

  1. Imagepageexample2, uploaded as: This is an image which I created. If you are an deletion nazi, f*** you.
  2. Imagepageexample3, uploaded and subsequently commented as: This is an image which I created. If you are an deletion nazi, f*** you, you probably never took a intellectual property rights class in your life, and deleting images is a way for you to forget your miserable, marginalized existence.

  You've marked both here as "public domain" which, as it contains as a derivative form the complete work of art inset as well as being a screenshot of GFDL software, is clearly not public domain. You did not create the contents of the first screenshot at all, nor did you create the majority of the second screenshot.

  Also, the help pages are replicated (upon request) to Wikimedia projects, however the images are not. A new project copying the help page as-is to their own project will notice the images lacking: Replicated images should be stored on Wikimedia Commons instead.

  Lastly in regards to these images, it's the uploader who is obliged to provide the source information and license. I didn't mention tagging, just source and license. Prettying up the page with tags can be corrected by those interested in doing so, but you do need to provide both sets of information for the images to stay put.

  While you're certainly free to make what comments you'd like[4], comments such as these do not further anyone's goals nor do they constructively contribute to the project. Furthermore, your assumptions on the higher education (or lack thereof) of others does you little good in the eyes of the community. While I have taken IP law courses in college, I would not feign encyclopedic knowledge of the sort that pays the six- and seven-figure incomes of IP attorneys, whereas you seem to feel free to do the same. Please reconsider your stance and attempt to assist on Meta cooperatively with others, not in conflict with them. Finally, comments such as [5] [6]what a fucking waste of my time are indicators that, perhaps, some real-life stresses are building up and you should consider taking a break from editing for a bit. I'd rather not see someone clearly interested in assisting the project unable to contribute due to on-wiki breakdown. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Unused images, copyright status uncertain (specially the image included), and inflammatory sayings in the comment. I also would recommend to put a block on the uploader due to vandalism. --Aphaia 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, Imagepageexample3.PNG is used on Help:Image page, as added by uploader. I can see a similar picture as useful, if we can move to an image page including a free image (instead of this one. Looks like an illustration from a Marcia Willett book.) I might suggest he look at image pages on Commons and upload the image there, that way it would: 1) be a known good properly licensed image, and 2) would be available to all wikis, not just Meta. If Odessaukrain can add the metadata description to add to the pic, so much the better. ~Kylu (u|t) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Jusjih.--Poetlister 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for undeletion

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map

Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation