Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:31, 10 January 2008

< January 7	January 9 >

January 8

User:L.L.King and images uploaded by his sockpuppets

This user uploaded a number of images under his sockpuppet accounts to promote Paris in Jail: The Music Video and the actors and production company involved in that video. The images this user claims they took are all likely copyright violations and should be scrutinized very carefully.

Image:Paris Video Spoof.jpg

Image:Paris Video Spoof.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cinemapress (notify | contribs).

CV & OR - Orphaned derivative work. PD claimed, but image is copyrighted and watermarked work of Omovies. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James Evans Actor.jpg

Image:James Evans Actor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CelebPress (notify | contribs).

CV - Uploaded as PD by sockpuppet of banned user but that is almost certainly false. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fine Arts Pose.jpg

Image:Fine Arts Pose.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MikeTheModel (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beer_Security.jpg

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

Likely CV - This is a sockpuppet of L.L.King and likely does not own the rights to this image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You can't prove that he's lying about his rights to the image. He may be a sockpuppeteer simply because he's a paranoid, and does not want people to know certain things he has done, for political reasons. He might have copyright ownership of the image, after all. Just ask him on his talk page. And no, I am not another sockpuppet of his. I am just User:Wilhelmina Will, and that's all I ever want anybody to recognize me as. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't prove that he didn't take this picture, no, but per WP:DUCK, the overwhelming amount of evidence against this user leads me to believe that he is misrepresenting his rights to this image. This includes claiming rights to other images which he obviously did not produce, promoting Paris in Jail: The Music Video and its associated actors and producers through numerous socks and attempting to hide these copyright violations through the use of those same sockpuppets. These things together remove any credibility for the license used on this image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael as Bacchus 2006.jpg

Image:Michael as Bacchus 2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cinemapress (notify | contribs).

CV, OR, UE - Image is orphaned, uploader likely does not have rights to release image and is unencyclopedic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paris_and_Mitch.jpg

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

per NFCC #8 and #3b, image is one of a dozen uploaded from same music video and used in the same articles with each other. Uploader is, again, a blocked sockpuppet of User:L.L.King. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cop_and_Paris.jpg

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

Identical to Image:Paris_and_Mitch.jpg. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg

Image:Michael_Q._Schmidt_at_wrap_party_for_Yesterday_Was_A_Lie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mqschmidt (notify | contribs).

Uploader is likely another sock of L.L.King, however image is a copyright violation that was cropped from a larger photo. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recieved some 50-odd emails in the last few days from literally all over the world. They have informed me that a page on Wiki about me was about to be deleted as being "non-notable"... and further, of a contentious argument on Wikipedia concerning reviewer Leon L. King's method of promoting projects with whom he may or may not have a vested interest. I had known an article existed, but did not concern myself with it until quite recently. I would request please, that that the page about me be removed immediately because being listed having on Wiki can be a detriment to one's career.

For example, the Paris Hilton trivia controversy that started the above-mentioned argument... and the number of changes for good or bad being done to that page. Such rampant spread of fabrication and misinformation, and the agrguments about what is worthy or not, have caused much popular media to feel that Wiki informations are generally unreliable, as changing on an hourly basis, and being too often the result of opinion proffered as fact.

The argument underscores my own feelings in this. Studying the L.L.King case in point, I see that the editor at the heart of this argument, in his rush to remove anything connected with King or his subordianants, first declared the article about me as "non-notable", and then proceeded himself to dismantle all the links and all images that might have shown any notability. I wish to point out, having read the artcle and the pre-dismantled verrsions, that the information removed by the angry editor were themselves factual. I found no errors or mis-truths. The fact that this person was able to do this is itself evident that personal opinion can be made to masquerade as fact anywhere on Wiki... to its detriment. Calling a car a junker and then driving it into a wall to destroy it makes it into the junker you first called it. Destroying a car because you do not like the previous owner is a childish act... one too often reflected in the pages of Wiki as seen through the eyes of popular media. The ability of one person to do this is the reason I insist that my "page" be removed.

I will not get into an argument about who is a sock puppet of whom. I do not care as it is not material to my own wish to not be connected to any source that pretends be truth when it all comes down to the simple fact that such a system is abused repeatedly... and under many guises... and often by the same individuals claiming to be working for a greater good. Such a system is not reliable. Consensus and opinion are not truth. Consensus and opinion are not fact..

Out of growing curiosity, I spent several hours following this one editor's trail of orchestrated and biased de-construction. I was appalled at the time and energy he has spent to make his own opinion more important than fact on numerous occasions. For instance, he has himself written an article about an unfortunate death. All deaths are unfortunate. But his personal interest in one such does not make it notable, no matter how much press coverage it may have gotten in his own part of the world. Studying the edits and counter-edits and arguments and counter-arguments I learned that he is a very opinionated person who does not like to be told that he has made an error in judgement. But he and those like him, and the ones that let him continue are the root and cause of all that is wrong with Wiki. His permitted continuance in his endeavours is an example of Wiki's biggest flaw.

I then found my way to this page of images he demand be deleted... and no doubt each and every one will be removed because he has the "friends in high places" and has thus been able to over-rule any disssent. Now inre these images of me... I wish to state for the record, that as an actor, I have absolutely no problem nor difficulty with any image of me being used, whether of my work as an actor or of my work as a fine arts model. I further wish to state that some of the images being proposed for removal are images taken of me on various film sets with my own camera, to which I owned the rights and to which I released to public domain years ago. As an actor, and as the subject and owner of those images, I allowed them to used by others. I do not rescind that permission, only feel very unhappy that they became part of his opinionated deceit.

More to the point, there is one image in particular being contested by this editor that I uploaded myself. I had a small background part in the film "Yesterday was a Lie". I was invited to the film's wrap party by actor/producer Chase Masterson. It was held in Hollywood in September 2006. At this warp party, I several times gave my camera to another guest and asked that they take a picture of me. One of those pictures was of me on the red carpet with star Kipley Brown, producer Chase Masterson and director James Kerwin. I cropped these other individuals out of my picture and now use the image as my "headshot" as is my right, owning the image. This cropped image is on the first page of my official web site. In August of 2007, I uploaded the image to Wiki personally as I had every right to do so. I again released it to the public domain... as was already done months previous when I had it put on my own website. I take exception to anyone acting without knowledge to blatantly call an image I owned a "copyright" violation... because I owned it, the rights to it, and cropped it and uploaded it. Owning all rights to the picture, I may do exactly what I did.

I am easily searchable on Google. My contact informations are on my website. I wish to point out as strongly as possible that this editor made absolutely no attempts to contact me to ascertain the truth about the image of me or in any way to confirm the statement he made about the image itself. The fact that anyone can act as this individual has done, and make any number of unsupported allegations without regard to evidence or truth or fact is a further indictment of Wikipedia. For these reasons, I would wish to have that image removed, as well as the article about me.

I know there may actually be people using Wiki that believe in it... that believe it can be used for the common good. That someone like this angry editor is able to abuse the process without any constraints, is horrific. And with all these truths being sadly quite evident, any article suffers when it is so readily subject to vandalism under the guise of (mis-used) authority.

I can easily be found on IMDB. I can easily be found with any Google search. I do not think this one person's opinion as to the notability of my life or career matter at all in the scheme of things. I also do not think Wiki should be giving credence to this person's opions being paraded as fact or as "consensus". As I said, opinion and consensus are not fact and never will be... except in the role-playing game of the self-righteous called "World of Wiki-craft". I do not need nor wish to be found on Wiki. Please remove the article about me and that picture of me... taken by a friend for me, with my own camera at the wrap party for "Yesterday was a Lie". - [Michael Q. Schmidt], a non-notable actor NOT hiding behind the veil of anonymity. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page for my comments on this issue. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I visited. I commented. Consensus is not truth. Opinion is not fact. And knowing how lazy many people are... too lazy even to click to a different page to follow this disucsion... and because here is where you caught my attention... I post here as well.

Wonderful research, Mister Clouds. So what? All it shows is that you are skilled computer person with lots of time on his hands... and it further underscores my reasons for wishing to have an article about me removed now from these pages. You control the World of Wiki-Craft, not I. You have apparently spent at least 2 years here learning all the ins and outs of Wikidome. And in abusing your knowledge by your own creation of a non-notable article about a non-notable (albeit sad and unfortunate death) are as guilty of WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and most specially WP:NPOV, as you claim I am.

I wrote that I was aware of the curent article about myself. I also wrote that I paid it little heed. I take as little interest in the dealings of subordinants as required. That I may have tried to write an article about myself one time, one that was immediately removed I might add, is not germaine. At that time I was as unversed in Wiki and Wiki protocols as even you must have been at one time... of course, my ignorance at that time is no excuse. But it taught me that I had to let others do their jobs and not waste the time myself. That one of my people or their subordinants created CinemaPress.biz in my name to promote films in which I have parts is laudable. That Leon King writes for them, I do not care. That you accuse me of being Mister King smacks of libel. That I gave over responsibilities to others is part and parcel of being even a "non-notable" such as myself.

It is you and your actions that have caused me to take an interest in what has been going on. And it is you and your actions that made me realize that Wiki is not the place I wish to be. You have single-handedly changed my opinion of Wiki... by showing me what it REALLY is. Your actions caused these so-called sock pupets to be blocked... though rightly so by the rules of World of Wiki-Craft. I was forced me to come forward and I discovered your little trail of misinformation, half-truths, and bald-faced lies. King and his cronies did not follow the rules of Wiki-dome... but certainly YOU should have known better. How on earth would you look at an image uploaded by "mqschmidt" and write the statement that his own work was a copyright violation of himself? Did you not even think to verify anything? You could have written. Checked. Asked a question. You have shown above that you are eminently capable of doing research... of asking questions... of probing the internet. How could you have rushed to judgement and made such a blatently false statement without at least trying to confirm a fact or two? The repeated pattern of your behavior throughout all areas of Wiki portends a sad future for the Wiki fad. King and his ilk did not follow the rules, and the have reaped the sore reward of their actions... but you? You are the supposed expert. You are the one to whom persons on Wiki look for an example. And if I may... did you even look at the page put up about me before de-constructing it? Worse, did the person placing the second tag on act in good faith when ignoring the fact that you yourself had removed any external link that might have showed relevance and notability? Did you not use any of your knowledgable research skills to see is anything there was fact? Or did you consider only the source and act out of a fit of pique? King and crew acted without proper consideration for Wiki protocols, and that is sad. But you? The expert?

That is why I wish my article and image removed. For bringing all this to my attention, I thank you. And I do hope I get an email or 2 from media. A PR gaffe? Not for me, and certainly not for King and his ilk... as they broke no laws and only used the tools provided to every player in the game "World of Wiki-Craft". His actions and yours simply underscore the biggest flaw of the Wiki system... that the system is not perfect and allows opinions to speak louder than fact or truth. I have followed closely how many other images you have put up for deletion because you think them not notable... you have been pressing your personal opinion as fact on Wiki for a long time... long before my failed article of last August and certainly long before King's visit. Opinion is not fact out in the real world... only in Wiki. In Wiki, you are an emperor. You computer skills indicate that you are centered, intelligent, determined, and creative... the skills to guarantee your being royalty in Wiki-dome. In the real world you probably bag groceries.

I do not need to hide in the shadows like a thief Mister Clouds... nor cower behind the anonymity of a false name or identity as WIki seems to encourage all to do. You have proven to me, that if even one petty tyrant like yourself or an over-achiever like King can do whatever they wish under the watchword of "consensus", then WIki has no future beyond amusement for shut-ins. It does not take a genius to see that on a website where every page is headed with the phrase "You can still make a contribution, or buy Wikimedia merchandise", the only POV that matters to them is their own. Even Wiki creators have an eye on the bottom line, as must we all. Why else would so many, much better outside sources be quickly removed if posted as a reference? Wiki wants what Wiki wants... and only whats good for Wiki. Wiki makes Wiki rules, so Wiki can do whatever Wiki wishes.

Wiki, despite all protestaions to the contrary, is untrustworthy as a source of information. My subordinants as just as guilty in their proving that as are you yourself. But you see.... they live and work in the real world and you in the "World of Wiki-Craft". Their job is hyperbole, while you claim to represent truth and fact. Sad and strange that in their hyperbole, they only posted verifiable facts... while in your witch hunts continue using lies and opinions as if they were fact. Wiki is like a child's monster-under-the-bed. It only has strength if the child believes it does, and only when the lights are turned off. Well sir, your intolerance turned on the light and allowed me to look under that bed. All I found was dust and crumbs.

If anyone needs to find me thay can do so on IMDB or by a simple Google search. And I again request that the article about me removed. Good luck in your future, and in whatever internet realms you visit. I will remain out here in the real world. I only suggest that you might consider using a little tact and a great deal more temperance in your actions... that you look before you leap and try not to espouse opinion as if it were fact. Of course... you are a skilled Wiki-itte and that seems to be the Wiki Way. Oh... and consider dropping the masquerade. If you are truly proud of what you do and what you say, do it as YOU... not as some anonymous imaginary name. Regards and best wishes,Michael Q. Schmidt MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:A_character_for_any_occasion.jpg

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

Blocked sock account of L.L.King, derivative work of copyrighted images. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael Q. Schmidt creating Joy Peters.jpg

Image:Michael Q. Schmidt creating Joy Peters.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cinemapress (notify | contribs).

per NFCC #8, is not mentioned in the article and does not substantially contribute to reader's understanding of subject. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE This image illustrates how the show's animations are made, and adds to the reader's and viewer's understanding of what is involved in the creation of the show. Godhead01 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I have to add to my comments... the image IS mentioned in tha article. In paragraph 3, "animation style which is made by taking photos of the cast with different expressions". The scene for which it was used in mentioned in the synopsis for the "rebith" episode, "using Joy in a rebirthing ceremony ". In these contexts, the image has value to the article. Godhead01 (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user registered this morning and, because of the nature of these nominations and subsequent action against their uploader, I have to question whether these comments are made in good faith by a unique user. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to upset you. I am a fan of the shows I have been editing and only wished to point out that you were in error when you made the statement "per NFCC #8, (the image) is not mentioned in the article", when in fact it was. And further, when you stated "does not substantially contribute to reader's understanding of subject", you were perhaps sharing an opinion. By way of visual example, the image does much more than mere words could to illustrate how the animations are created. Godhead01 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Onset_with_Bill_Pullman_and_Richard_Riehle.jpg

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

CV - sockpuppet upload likely does not have rights to release this image, per all other noms above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leige_King.jpg

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

CV - Blocked uploader likely does not have rights to release image, two other similar images are up for deletion and this one should be deleted under the same criteria. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hpiddy.jpg

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

per NFCC#8, watermarked image is not discussed in article and does not enhance understanding of subject. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chauntal_Lewis_as_Lindsay.jpg

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

Watermarked image fails NFCC #3b and #8 as discussed above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James_B._Evans.JPG

Image:James_B._Evans.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anypose (notify | contribs).

per NFCC #3b and #8 above, uploader is confirmed sockpuppet of blocked and user, also claims GFDL, but image appears to be a screencap. Once again, probably the work Omovies or some other work associated with Paris in Jail or its producers. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tom_Peters_and_wife_Joy.jpg

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

per NFCC #8, image is not discussed in article and does not contribute to article in a significant way. Uploaded by a sock puppet of blocked user to promote actors within it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE Joy giving Tom grief is a common theme throughout the entire series. The image right above it of Tom and the Mayor is not "specifically" discussed in the article either, but just as the Joy image, acts to illustrate repeated themes within the show. Godhead01 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I need to correct myself here. Sorry. The action of the image IS specidfically referred to in the synopsis for the episode "Pipe Camp", "Joy verbally accosts Tom for interrupting her breakfast". In both this specific context and as an overall illustration of the Tom/Joy relationship, the image should stay. Godhead01 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is a new user registration from an account with no other edits than to IFD. Aside from those concerns, the image does not contribute substantially to either article where text would do just as well (NFCC #8). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing only the cogent points of your response, I am again sorry that I need to counter your opinion. Throughout the "Tom Goes to the Mayor" series, Joy has a turbulent relationship with Tom. This image showing Joy eating a "breakfast trough" while Tom cowers in the doorway is a superb illustration of the Joy/Tom relationship, expressing in one picture what it might take volumes to explain. In that manner and in that way is contributes quite substantially to viewer understanding of the show, its's characters, and their interactions. Again, the image IS discussed in the article and contributes substantially to the viewer's understanding, being succinct, relevent and to the point. While text might do to replace ANY image anywhere, this is an instance where one picture IS worth a thousand words. Godhead01 (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stephanie Courtney.jpg

Image:Stephanie Courtney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by L.L.King (notify | contribs).

GFDL asserted without proof. Probable copyright violation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:33919.jpg

Image:33919.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thefreshraj (notify | contribs).

Has no use purpose and a name containing random numbers. Compwhiz II 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs here, but this same image has been speedied twice so far. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Warka.jpg

Image:Warka.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soad666 (notify | contribs).

orphan, unencyclopedic; was part of vandalism on Warka. This image is also listed for having no copyright information, but I am also listing it here because clarifying the copyright status would not be sufficient. Bovlb (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was used to vandalize the infobox in place of a city emblem/city logo. —MJCdetroit (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cold_Case.jpg

Image:Cold_Case.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SJR2008 (notify | contribs).

Orphan, the article it was on was deleted for non-notability. The image can not go on the commons, as it was uploaded by a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked on the commons. BlueAzure (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MaineRoute9A.GIF

Image:MaineRoute9A.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gateman1997 (notify | contribs).

Redundant to Image:MA Route 9A.svg, a more accurate SVG on Commons. (Massachusetts and Maine shields are identical.) --—Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Whoamigradmosaic.jpg

Image:Whoamigradmosaic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Firewire280 (notify | contribs).

OR, unencyclopedic, possibly a copyvio B (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:TimmyTurner.gif

Image:TimmyTurner.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wilhelmina Will (notify | contribs).

Image found on a search engine. Those are not allowed on Wikipedia. Soxπed Ninety Three | tc db 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sticks her tongue out at the nominator) Haha! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an inside joke that I'm missing? The image is used under a claim of fair use. That the image is on a search engine has no bearing on whether or not that claim is valid. --B (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - WP:NOIMAGESFOUNDONSEARCHENGINES and WP:IMAGESFOUNDONSEARCHENGINESAREOK seem to contradict each other in this instance. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those exist! It's plain to see! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept - nomination process not completed, invalid reason for deletion given, not a serious discussion. Please feel free to renominate if there are serious concerns with the image. --B (talk) 05:37, 8 January 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:Evidence_of_Miles'_Homeschooling.jpg

Image:Evidence_of_Miles'_Homeschooling.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Berniejw (notify | contribs).

No licensing or source given. Clearly self-uploaded, as the only page which links here is a non-notable self-made biography. thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trailblazesymbols.jpg

Image:Trailblazesymbols.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Latitude0116 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, replaced by Image:Trail blaze-symbols.svg. The user who originally uploaded this image provided it under a non-free Wikipedia-only license. Someone else retagged it as PD-ineligible, which is probably correct, but since it has been replaced, there is no need to keep it around. B (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NASAExtrasolarFlash.jpg

Image:NASAExtrasolarFlash.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Latitude0116 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic B (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kimiko and agot.JPG

Image:Kimiko and agot.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Princess kimiko (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic orphaned image. User's only contributions are uploading personal photos. --Kelvinc (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Wilhelmina Will has unorphaned the photo at User:Princess kimiko (see Image:3399864355904l.jpg below). I still request delete under WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Kelvinc (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still? You don't stop, do you? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wanted to point out that my initial statement of orphan has been superseded. kimiko's edit history clearly shows that kimiko has never done any actual edits, but only personal photo uploads. Indeed, many image uploads were ignored until Image:kimiko.JPG got overwritten and I glanced over kimiko's logs and saw only personal photo uploads. As far as I can tell, kimiko does not respond (in writing or in action) to inquiries and comments on the talk page. If these uploads were meant to adorn the user page as a means of introduction to other Wikipedians, then I would have no problem with that, but it would be pretty apparent since the user page would be edited. All signs indicate that kimiko uploads images for personal use, not for Wikipedia consumption, which goes against WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. That you have added the images onto the user page does not change the fact that they were never meant for that purpose in the first place, or that they should serve such a purpose. Kelvinc (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear violation of WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Recommend block of account under WP:SPA. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3399864355904l.jpg

Image:3399864355904l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Princess kimiko (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic orphaned image. User's only contributions are uploading personal photos. --Kelvinc (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Wilhelmina Will has unorphaned the image by creating a user page for User:Princess kimiko and adding the image ([1] [2]). However, there is no indication that this is Princess kimiko's wishes, or that Princess kimiko ever intended to use the image in a Wikipedia user page. Again, see WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. Kelvinc (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I notified her of what I did, and explained why. If she didn't want that done, then she would remove it from her page. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User's only contributions are personal photos. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1211.jpg

Image:1211.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Captainpeejay (notify | contribs).

OR, UE --Icarus ^(Hi!) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cm.jpg

Image:Cm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Murali Thoota (notify | contribs).

Unused, article was A7 speedy deleted --Icarus ^(Hi!) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: appears to be from [3], which states "© 2003. Department of Information Technology, Govt. of NCT of Delhi." Living person, thus deleteable under WP:FU#Unacceptable images #12. Also, file name is undescriptive and has been overwritten on two occasions by images of totally different people, and the PD template is actually left over from the original upload. Kelvinc (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No article links to this; uploader has in the past used this image to vandalize article Enterprise Rent-A-Car Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fred_Rogers_and_Yo_Yo_Ma.jpg

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

does not significantly add to readers' understanding, not discussed in-text Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LL2007.jpg

Image:LL2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KamilaB (notify | contribs).

CV - Public domain asserted, but uploader likely does not have rights to commercial image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3_of_Makell_Bird's_albums.gif

Image:3_of_Makell_Bird's_albums.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Makellbird (notify | contribs).

Orphaned ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 *'''Comment:''' You can't prove that he's lying about his rights to the image. He may be a sockpuppeteer simply because he's a [[paranoid]], and does not want people to know certain things he has done, for political reasons. He might have copyright ownership of the image, after all. Just ask him on his talk page. And no, I am not another sockpuppet of his. I am just User:Wilhelmina Will, and that's all I ever want anybody to recognize me as. [[User:Wilhelmina Will|Wilhelmina Will]] ([[User talk:Wilhelmina Will|talk]]) 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 :*I can't prove that he didn't take this picture, no, but per [[WP:DUCK]], the overwhelming amount of evidence against this user leads me to believe that he is misrepresenting his rights to this image. This includes claiming rights to other images which he obviously did not produce, promoting [[Paris in Jail: The Music Video]] and its associated actors and producers through numerous socks and attempting to hide these copyright violations through the use of those same sockpuppets. These things together remove any credibility for the license used on this image. [[User:Cumulus Clouds|Cumulus Clouds]] ([[User talk:Cumulus Clouds|talk]]) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
+::*[[WP:AGF]] [[Special:Contributions/131.44.121.252|131.44.121.252]] ([[User talk:131.44.121.252|talk]]) 22:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 ====[[:Image:Michael as Bacchus 2006.jpg]]====