User talk:Peripitus

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_28#Image:AbruzziSpurRoute1.jpg

Hi Peripitus. I was about to post on this IfD but got edit conflicted with your close. I would have made the point that as Abdul Aziz is a Pakistani name, he was quite likely a local high altitude porter hired by the expedition (colloquially he'd probably be called a Sherpa, though strictly speaking you don't find many Sherpas in Pakistan), and local porters are typically not listed as expedition members, so the fact that his name doesn't appear isn't too surprising. As for John Canivley, again he doesn't have to have been a climber - if he was along as a film-maker who didn't climb on the mountain itself he wouldn't have been on the list of climbers either, though it's still a little odd that I couldn't find his name anywhere on Google. Another possibly noteworthy observation is that he claimed one picture as his own and attributed the other to Aziz - if he just nicked them from a website why not claim to have taken them both himself. I suppose I don't really object to your close as much of this is supposition, and to err on the side of caution is probably to delete it anyway (plus it wasn't that good a picture - it could be any climber's posterior on any mountain), but wouldn't have gone as far as to conclude the attribution was bogus, just uncertain - maybe I could persuade you to rephrase the reasoning? Best, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peripitus, I don't know exactly how the image deletion process works, but it seems to me that when images are being proposed for deletion, there ought to be a courtesy note placed on the talk pages of the effected articles so that involved editors can participate in the discussion. Is there any sort of appeals process? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here's my two cents about the deletion. The fact that the website you mentioned [1] doesn't contain the expedition is not a prove that there hasn't been such an expedition. K2climb.net states on this site: "Note: List is preliminary and subject to changes" and "Did we forget you or your friends? Mail us...". sorry, I just saw that k2climbs listed that expedition (I didn't see anything about "daring to dream" film) and Carl Drew et. al are mentioned. but the rest of my points is still usable somehow: The absence of the name johncanivley is not a prove either. Since when do usernames have to be a person's real name? And concerning Mr. Abdul Aziz: Well, I found this by using google: Homepage of the 2006 K2 expedition just scroll down to the article update from Carl & Kurt of July 18, 2006 and you will find out that Abdul Aziz is a high altitude porter (HAP) who was responsible for carrying the expedition's filming equipment. But HAPs usually do not bring their own camera. So it's most certainly as I guessed in the first place: Mr. Aziz took the camera on the mountain and pictured Carl Dew while climbing that ominous ladder. Johncanivley, the camera-owner's WP-username (maybe Carl Dew himself - but there's really no evidence for that guess...) uploaded it to WP and included it into the article. Iain99 might be right by stating that the picture doesn't really tell which mountain it is, but regarding the information i just found it seems rather authentic. So if you were assuming good faith in the first place you might react positively concerning my request for restoring the picture. Thanksalot. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

@Marvin Diode: The user who proposed deletion unfortunately forgot to put a note on the K2-talkpage. Wikipedia:Deletion review ask you this before appealing on that page: 1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. So that's what I tried here... --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, but I was asking a more general question. I am not involved in the discussion over K2. There were some other images about which I was concerned. I'll start a new section. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra detective work Rupert. The fact that Aziz was a hired porter, particularly one involved with making a documentary, also means it's quite likely that someone other than him would own the copyright to a picture he took, regardless of the ownership of the camera. It seems quite plausible that John Canivley was a non-climber involved in making the film, which also employed Aziz. So while we can't know for certain that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder, the same is true of every photograph uploaded as "GFDL-self"; there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to doubt the validity of this one in particular, and the fact that the uploader went out of his way to credit the actual photographer is a reason to assume good faith. Peripitus, would you be willing to reconsider your close?

(incidentally Rupert, I didn't mean to imply that I doubt that the picture was actually taken on K2 - just that as a photo of a fairly nondescript piece of rock it's of limited use for showing the particular characteristics of that mountain. Still, it's better than nothing) Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

another one by johncanivley that is a bit more relevant for an encyclopedia because it shows the mountain K2 and also Broad Peak base camp on the Godwin Austen glacier. Considering the uploader bogus would have had to lead to a deletion of this picture too, and that would have been regrettable...

I think I got that right (but I wanted to avoid a response like, well if the picture is not needed, why should it be restored? ;-). But I actually like that picture, because it shows some serious climbing action. And it's good for me that I can be pretty sure that it depicts what it claims to (the right place). But for other viewers its indeed just rocks, some ropes, a ladder and a climber; could be anywhere in the alps, andes or wherever......--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Folks you have convinced me and I've undeleted the image and added back to the K2 article. The above scenarios sound very beliveable...thanks for taking the time on this - Peripitus (Talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks Peripitus! Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 21:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

From me too: Thank you! --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:ZionismCampaigner.jpg

I was unaware that this image had been proposed for deletion. I think that it is extremely helpful to the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche, because one of the debates between LaRouche and his critics is over whether opposition to Zionism is a form of Anti-semitism. The magazine cover, which dates from the time of this debate, makes LaRouche's view that "Zionism is not Judaism" very clear, and I believe this is helpful because otherwise we are in dangerous waters with respect to BLP.

I'd like to add that I have seen the argument made before, I believe by the same editor (User:Cumulus Clouds,) that images who were uploaded by an editor who was subsequently banned must be deleted. I know of no Wikipedia policy which supports this view. Image uploads, like edits, should be evaluated on their own terms as to whether they are useful to the project. Therefore I request that the image be undeleted and restored, pending further discussion.

Finally, I'd like to return to my question in the previous section: when an image is being proposed for deletion, is there no mechanism whereby editors of the effected articles can be informed, so that they may participate in the discussion? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The uploader was a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thus he was banned before he uploaded the images, not after. Technically, that would have been reason enough to speedy delete the images. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also looking at the image, and the article it was on I think that it would clearly fall into unacceptable use under the normal interpretation of Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_use (images item 8) - "A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate.". While a fair-use argument could be made for including the magazine cover in an article on the magazine itself (Campaigner) there is no sourced commentary of the magazine cover in the article - just discussion of the subjects covered in the magazine. This really means that the use of the image is just decorative and would also probably not meet consensus on passing WP:NFCC#8. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. --Marvin Diode (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Footbo

An article that you have been involved in editing, Footbo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footbo. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)}

Please restore Image:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg

Could you please restore Image:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg? Another editor, Nonameplayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is probably the uploader, has written at [[Talk:Image:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg]] (rather than Image_talk:Sylvester Braithwaite.jpg)

I own the copyright to the material and sent an email to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org.

the image is on my flickr account: http://www.flickr.com/photos/noname/152627788/in/photostream/ Released under creative commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

--Eastmain (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

References & Sources

Can we use wikipedia as a reference? Or youtube perhaps?Eduhello (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of File:DCS promo front.jpg

Hi. You deleted File:DCS promo front.jpg earlier today, following its IFD nomination on 29 August. The nominator said it was a replacable image of a building, however, this is false. The image is o Degrassi Community School, a fictional school in Degrassi: The Next Generation. The producers, Epitome Pictures, do not use a real school; it is simply a facade on their backlot which is not open to the public. While working on getting a number of Degrassi articles to FA status, I asked the production company in July if they would be willing to supply any free-to-use images but unfortunately they told me that they couldn't at this time. I was hoping you would be willing to reconsider your deletion since there is no replaceable image, and it really isn't a building. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lt Clayton.JPG

Sorry Peripitus, but this closure I really can't accept. You know I usually respect your judgment, but here, for me, it's an absolutely straightforward case of a policy that is crystal clear and can't be overridden by consensus. Can you see any merit in the arguments that this case met some accepted exemption of the no-living-persons rule? I just can't. DRV? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)