Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Necromouse.jpg
Copyvio. See http://twub.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html, Copyright © 1999 – 2007 Google, see intellectual property rights under http://www.blogger.com/terms.g. Also, no indication of GFDL on page, no indication of creative comments, etc. Also see http://www.flickr.com/photos/lob2k/10292401/ Night Ranger 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep flickr and blogger images were uploaded after the Wikipedia image was first uploaded in Feb 2005. / Fred J 07:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Correct, those came out after my initial upload, and use the same filename as my original upload. Alkivar 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this looks like something useless and low resolution Madmax32 11:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why useless? It is used on necrophilia articles on four wikipedias, including en:Necrophilia / Fred J 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's because there are stupid people who insert it into those articles. #1 no evidence the mouse it is dead or it is engaging in sexual contact (for all we know this was staged) #2 necrophilia refers to a human sexual fascination with corpses, mice are not people. This is okay on a joke website but not on an encyclopedia Madmax32 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please: we are not the moral guide of Wikipedia, we are their image provider. The image has been there since 2005 and has been discussed (en:Talk:Necrophilia#Mouse_Photograph) with consensus for it to stay. It makes no sense to delete it from here. / Fred J 16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's because there are stupid people who insert it into those articles. #1 no evidence the mouse it is dead or it is engaging in sexual contact (for all we know this was staged) #2 necrophilia refers to a human sexual fascination with corpses, mice are not people. This is okay on a joke website but not on an encyclopedia Madmax32 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why useless? It is used on necrophilia articles on four wikipedias, including en:Necrophilia / Fred J 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you read the necrophilia page it would have told you that necrophilia was the "love of corpses". It does not refer to singularly human behavior, we are just egotistic and assume that it can only refer to people in the act. However this picture does at least prove a point; that animals are culprits of the act of necrophilia as well. Staged or not this picture should not be removed just because someone doubts its athenticity.
- OK, other animals have sometimes exhibited necrophilia. Noted. That discussion is not particularly relevent to this deletion requests-- it is an image of dubious source at dreadful low resolution that we don't know if it depicts what it claims. I disagree that there is any "consensus" about use of the image on en:Wikipedia, but in any case source and licencing requirements are somewhat looser there then here. Lousy low res possibly faked dubiously sourced image? Not for Commons. -- Infrogmation 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you read the necrophilia page it would have told you that necrophilia was the "love of corpses". It does not refer to singularly human behavior, we are just egotistic and assume that it can only refer to people in the act. However this picture does at least prove a point; that animals are culprits of the act of necrophilia as well. Staged or not this picture should not be removed just because someone doubts its athenticity.
- Delete like Madmax32. Yann 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing seems to be going on here. This image is unencyclopedic, awful quality and adds nothing to the project. It isn't even verifiable that these mice are real or they're engaging in the "activity" they're supposedly engaging in. Night Ranger 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its only awful quality because someone came in and compressed the ever living shit out of it. I've reverted back to the original which is MUCH clearer. Alkivar 23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing seems to be going on here. This image is unencyclopedic, awful quality and adds nothing to the project. It isn't even verifiable that these mice are real or they're engaging in the "activity" they're supposedly engaging in. Night Ranger 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep not that anyone will give any weight to my !vote as i'm not a regular commons contributor. However it should be obvious 1) I dont falsely claim copyright 2) I have contributed many images in public domain or had friends release images GFDL/CC-by-SA. 3) If someone wishes to remain anonymous and still contribute text its allowed... why not an image? Alkivar 00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic and unverifiable. It is impossible to determine what the two mice are doing here or even that they're actual mice and not fake. Furthermore, the uploader does not have rights to the image (according to his own comments on the image page) and therefore licensing and copyright are impossible to verify. Night Ranger 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- This person "Alkivar" says "I did not take the photo, my friend did, he authorized its release via GFDL but stated he did not want his name associated with it." If this logic is okay, then I could just as easily take a picture of Madonna from the internet, claim "my friend" took it and released it as GFDL but they don't want their name associated with it. Real copyright licensing can't be done by "a friend of a friend" it needs to be done by the copyright holder. Delete this thing. Night Ranger 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- This person "Alkivar" is me, an admin on EN Wikipedia. I have credibility, and do not upload copyvio. My friend who took the photo is a professional journalist who didnt want his name attached to the photo but didnt mind it being released. We allow anonymous text contributions, why not image contributions? I can certainly give people who are required evidence that it is in fact GFDL released. Alkivar 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete Add to the questionable sourcing mentioned above that the image is of absolutely dreadful quality.-- Infrogmation 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)- The dreadful quality is because someone came in and jpeg compressed the ever living shit out of it for no apparent reason. I have since reverted to the original version which is clear. Alkivar 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my, yes, I see Madmax32 mucked with it terribly. Why? -- Infrogmation 00:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The dreadful quality is because someone came in and jpeg compressed the ever living shit out of it for no apparent reason. I have since reverted to the original version which is clear. Alkivar 23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Closed as Keep Due to apparent bad faith actions by some of the people opposed to keeping it. (The quality of the image was destroyed, then people voted against it on that basis). If someone wants to make an argument to delete this purely on the grounds of non-usefulness they can open a new deletion request, but this one is too tainted by incorrect information. --Gmaxwell 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
(1) This image is still of poor quality, even though a new version has been uploaded. It cannot be ascertained what these 2 "mice" are doing, whether they are real mice (they look like rubber toys to me), or if they are, indeed engaging in the claimed activity. As such, image has no value to the article on the behavior for which it has been uploaded and is unencyclopedic due to poor quality. (2) I don't know anything about these claims of bad-faith that were brought up in the last IFD, but admin status should not make one exempt from the rules. Everyone who uploads an image must either state that they own the rights to the image and release them into GFDL, or else provide evidence that the copyright owner released the image under GFDL. Saying "my friend released it" isn't good enough. If evidence can be obtained then, please provide it via the correct channels. Night Ranger 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, as the previous request was settled two days ago. Rama 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Needs an OTRS ticket # as uploader does not own copyright per comments in summary Night Ranger 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept, there is no reason to assume this is a copyright violation; I've asked the uploader to email OTRS. w:User talk:Alkivar#Image:Necromouse.jpg John Vandenberg (chat) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This image, after ages and ages, still has copyright problems. License shows that Alkivar is the copyright holder, but in the Summary, he says he did not take the picture, his "friend" did. He was asked in February to provide pertinent info to OTRS for verification and there is no evidence of him doing so. He has since been desysopped and has retired. Night Ranger 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If this image was pre-existing on the web the source would have been found by now. So it is reasonable to believe it is an original image. -Nard 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept and ENOUGH OF THIS. You don't get to open a deletion request again and again (this is the fifth time by the same user) until you get the answer you want. Stop it. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)