Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion/Unverified orphans

message: :Image:XcutMOSFET.png (used in talk pages, recently cut out of an article)
* It was cut out of an article because it wasn't useful there. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
** There was some question about that.  It is explicitly not the job of someone cleaning up images to make the subject-level decision of whether or not an image is useful on a particular page.  If there are well-meaning contributors who feel that it is useful, and there is a discussion about that, deleting the image does nobody any good. +sj + 05:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not quite orphaned

message: via the user page of the contributor, or info in the caption
* :Image:Zilverr.jpg
** What license do you think this is available under? I don't see one. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:27, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
*** Looking on the nl: page as suggested (replacing en with nl in the base URL), turns up the same image with "open bron/ parkservice" in the description.  Sounds like a class of licensed photos to me.  Luckily, I don't have to know, since someone asked the image uploader, GerardM, about it back in December.  He clarifies (from his talk page): "The license is that it can be used by wikimedia projects as long as the original photographer is recognised. (see nl:wikipedia. GerardM 18:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: License info available

message: ** For these. Could be. Or maybe not. No evidence either way. Again, if they're useful, then put them into an article and they won't be deleted.
* :Image:Narrow_lanes_2.jpg
* :Image:Orsistersdowntown2.jpg
* :Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg
*:  A *glorious* photo, with hi-res version.  Orphaned just last month by an an anonymous edit.
*:: And a copyright violation, as noted above. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
*::: Seems unlikely, as noted above. +sj +
* :Image:Bushland.jpg
*: An ancient photo, which had been taken by one long-time contributor and sharpened by another.
*::The uploaded told me he got it off the Internet. It's been obsoleted. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
*::: Okay.  As long as you checked before listing it on IfD.
*:::: I did. I work hard at this. Assume good faith. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:33, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
* :Image:Xi%27an_city_wall.jpg
*: With hi-res version and detailed caption.
*::True. I wish we knew whether it was usable on Wikipedia or not. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
*::: Me too.  Note how we're not deleting images like the autofellation picture, which is far more likely to be a copyvio?  At least this one could reasonably have been a vacation photo. +sj + 05:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style & caption suggests it was uploaded by the [active] creator

message: Poll closed. No consensus found. See next section. 
===Preamble===
Several users have in the past few months listed "unverified orphans" to be deleted. Here are the rules of unverified orphans (UOs):
# An image is an unverified orphan if it is not used in any Wikipedia articles, and has not been given a valid image tag. 
# An UO should only be listed if the submitter believes that the copyright status cannot be determined without further information from the uploader, or that the image is not useful in any Wikipedia articles.
# UO pages should be tagged , and the user page of the uploader (if active) should be tagged with .
Arguments both for and against this practice have been detailed above. It has also been suggested that a separate page be created for unverified orphans, with a longer wait. So should users list images to be deleted if they are unverified orphans, assuming the above practices are followed? And should they be listed here, or on a separated page?
=== Unverified orphans should be listed for deletion on IFD. ===
:Note: this assumes the above rules are followed.
# – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
#  — Zeimusu | Talk 13:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: this also assumes the above rules are followed.
# – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
# - Plugwash i think we need a wait time of at least a couple of months AND the email this user for the uploader must have been tried. Thier userpage should also be checked for homepage and/or email links that may allow contact with the user. Plugwash 10:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Poll on undeleted orphans
 

message: :Note: this assumes the above rules are followed.
# – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
#  — Zeimusu | Talk 13:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified orphans should be listed for deletion on IFD. 

message: :Note: this also assumes the above rules are followed.
# – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
# - Plugwash i think we need a wait time of at least a couple of months AND the email this user for the uploader must have been tried. Thier userpage should also be checked for homepage and/or email links that may allow contact with the user. Plugwash 10:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified orphans should be listed for deletion on a separate page. 

message: # +sj + 10:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified orphans should not be listed for deletion. 

message: * Please leave comments here, and not in the voting section. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
**:m:Polls are evil, but I support what Quadell's been doing.  dbenbenn | talk 00:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments