File talk:James Kwesi Appiah, 2012.jpg
Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it.
The result was to delete the image. — ξxplicit 00:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested deletion[edit]
This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because it is a screenshot with a valid Template:Non-free video screenshot. For demonstration as for Template:Non-free music video screenshot in File:Rihanna - S&M.jpg and File:Overvideo.jpg. - MarkMysoe (talk) 28 May 2012, 19:28 (UTC)
- Those are clearly screenshots. This does not appear to be a screenshot. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik Shabazz, I can assure you that this image is a screenshot, as it is a low quality image taken from the YouTube video of Ghana assistant coach Kwesi Appiah by pausing the YouTube video then pressing the (Prt Sc SysRq) on a PC US English keyboard layout and then opening the Microsoft Paint (software) and pasting the screenshot image on the software program before finally cropping the screenshot image. By the image being screenshoted and edited in this way, it is possibly the reason why this screenshot turns out larger and clearer than the File:Rihanna - S&M.jpg and File:Overvideo.jpg screenshot's. I have already tried in the past to upload this screenshot as a free self made image, but editor User:Oleola would put the image for nomination for deletion. I don't know what is wrong with the editor User:Oleola for doing this when this image is a screenshot with the valid Template:Non-free video screenshot licence. I am not familiar with any other appropriate licence that could be used for this screenshot authored by me MarkMysoe other than the valid Template:Non-free video screenshot licence, as it is a screenshot in the first place, unless you Malik Shabazz know, or know of another editor that can select another licence for this screenshot. - MarkMysoe (talk) 29 May 2012, 01:42 (UTC)
- Looking at the YouTube video, I see that it is a screenshot. I'll decline the speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a screenshot, true, but it is not a screenshot being used "for identification and critical commentary on the video and its contents". As such, the F7 deletion criterion (obviously false tag) did in fact apply. With respect to its actual purpose (being used as a portrait of the person in question) it is also obviously replaceable, being a non-free image of a living public individual. I normally speedy such files under F7, but out of respect to my fellow admin who declined to do so I'll hold off from doing that for now. However, this merely means we have another unnecessary waiting period of 48 hours before it will eventually be deleted as replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. WP:F7 gives as an example of a false tag a photo tagged as a logo. This isn't such a case. The only other F7 immediate deletion is a stock photo without critical commentary. Non-free images that can be replaced with free images (including pictures of living people) must wait two days. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The example given in the language of WP:CSD#F7 is just that, an example. The actual definition of the criterion is quite clear: "a clearly invalid fair-use tag". Since the condition "for identification and critical commentary on the video and its contents" is part of the tag used here, and the actual use of the image in this case obviously doesn't meet this description, I don't see how that doesn't make the tag "clearly invalid". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I see what you're saying. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The example given in the language of WP:CSD#F7 is just that, an example. The actual definition of the criterion is quite clear: "a clearly invalid fair-use tag". Since the condition "for identification and critical commentary on the video and its contents" is part of the tag used here, and the actual use of the image in this case obviously doesn't meet this description, I don't see how that doesn't make the tag "clearly invalid". Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. WP:F7 gives as an example of a false tag a photo tagged as a logo. This isn't such a case. The only other F7 immediate deletion is a stock photo without critical commentary. Non-free images that can be replaced with free images (including pictures of living people) must wait two days. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MarkMysoe, I think you may not understand our non-free content policy. Except in very rare circumstances, non-free pictures of living people are not allowed. Fut.Perf. and I agree that this picture violates the rules and should be deleted. See WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFC#UULP. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has come to a conclusion that Future Perfect at Sunrise is isolated in his/her view that the screenshot is a screenshot and that it is licensed under a valid Template:Non-free video screenshot licence and also refuses to accept that the screenshot is a screenshot and that it is licensed under a valid Template:Non-free video screenshot licence. It looks like and therefore comes to the conclusion that Future Perfect at Sunrise, as a un-neutral and a abuser of Wikipedia administrator rights as shown and mentioned on his/her user page, is at all cost trying to get this validly Template:Non-free video screenshot licensed screenshot wrongfully and unnecessarily deleted from Wikipedia under a un-credible reason of WP:F7.
- Malik Shabazz please think about it, if you are saying that the screenshot File:Rihanna - S&M.jpg which shows the singer Rihanna who is perfectly alive and the screenshot File:Overvideo.jpg which shows the rapper Drake (entertainer) who is also perfectly alive, then that WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFC#UULP would account to those two screenshots and that they should also be deleted as they would also "violate the rules" and also to all other screenshots on Wikipedia showing a person who is alive (living people) and not dead (no longer living people). MarkMysoe (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the fair-use license on those pages. The screenshot is being used "for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question" (emphasis in original). If you were using this screenshot to make critical commentary about the video in question, its use would be permitted under our fair-use policy. But this screenshot is (was) being used in the infobox simply to identify James Kwesi Appiah. That use fails the policy.
- If you have any questions about the policy as it pertains to this image, please raise the issue at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik Shabazz if the case is that the screenshot can be used in a article and not a infobox "for identification and critical commentary about the video in question", then its use would be permitted under our fair-use policy as the screenshot is only now used in the Ghana national football team Wikipedia article and not in a Wikipedia article's infobox, in the same way as the screenshot File:Rihanna - S&M.jpg and the screenshot File:Overvideo.jpg are both being used in articles and not in a Wikipedia article's infobox. MarkMysoe (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think it's the difference between "used in the infobox" and "used outside the infobox" that makes the crucial difference here? Read the criterion again. The crucial difference is that between being "used for critical commentary on the video" and becing used for some other purpose. What's so difficult to understand about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik Shabazz if the case is that the screenshot can be used in a article and not a infobox "for identification and critical commentary about the video in question", then its use would be permitted under our fair-use policy as the screenshot is only now used in the Ghana national football team Wikipedia article and not in a Wikipedia article's infobox, in the same way as the screenshot File:Rihanna - S&M.jpg and the screenshot File:Overvideo.jpg are both being used in articles and not in a Wikipedia article's infobox. MarkMysoe (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.
