Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/02/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![18 File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif](#File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Le_Touquet-Paris-Plage.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_18.47.47.png){kind=link}
Blurryy, even File:Phébus 1900.JPG is a better image Bulwersator (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep I know that the quality of the picture is bad. But the car is very very rare. I have not found any other picture of a Phébus 4-wheeled-car (Quadricycle) on commons. Don't compare with File:Phébus 1900.JPG. That is a 3-wheeled-car (Tricycle). And: Both pictures are used in de:Phébus (Automarke). --Buch-t (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Very blurry image Afifa Afrin (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Same discussion as 6 years ago. I know that the quality of the picture is bad. But the car is very very rare. I have not found any other picture of a Phébus 4-wheeled-car (Quadricycle) on commons. The picture is used in de:Phébus (Automarke). A bad picture is better than no picture. You can see some details: 4 wheels (not 3 wheels like this) / small wheels (not Highwheeler like this) / open body / no front engine / front passenger seat. --Buch-t (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
_(3003282296).jpg){kind=link}
Kept: per user Buch-t. --Rosenzweig τ 15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation @Claude Viallat & ADAGP Ghiardini (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted artwork of a living artist, picture taken in France PierreSelim (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation @Claude Viallat & ADAGP Ghiardini (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted artwork of a living artist, picture taken in France PierreSelim (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation @Patrick Saytour & ADAGP Ghiardini (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted artwork of a living artist, picture taken in France PierreSelim (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation @ Claude Viallat & ADAGP Ghiardini (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted artwork of a living artist, picture taken in France PierreSelim (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Wiki02 (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete 124.123.90.179 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by uploader on day of upload Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete Wiki02 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete 124.123.90.179 05:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by uploader on day of upload Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image with no conceivable educational use QU TalkQu 11:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --Túrelio (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: OK - I know it should be open longer but I agree fully with this nom and it has also been tagged as a speedy Herby talk thyme 10:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
wrong filename EchterMacGutter (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: if the filename is wrong please use the {{Rename}} instead of a deletion request PierreSelim (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
wrong filename EchterMacGutter (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: if the filename is wrong please use the {{Rename}} template instead of a deletion request PierreSelim (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
wrong filename EchterMacGutter (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: if the filename is wrong please use the {{Rename}} template instead of a deletion request PierreSelim (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
wrong filename EchterMacGutter (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: if the filename is wrong please use the {{Rename}} template instead of a deletion request PierreSelim (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
wrong filename EchterMacGutter (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: if the filename is wrong please use the {{Rename}} template instead of a deletion request PierreSelim (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Je l'ai importé par erreur. Il n'est pas le fruit de mon travail. Avec mes excuses. Cypris (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio (wrongly imported file) PierreSelim (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader. Túrelio (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader is not the copyright holder PierreSelim (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete The picture is showing a brutal action to another person. I see a risk, that some is learning that action on wikipedia commons for doing that to another person, wich consider a criminal act. We should not support these acts. The pictures is linked to an articel, decribing this action. I think we even don´t need the illustration of it. Gegensystem (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Falls within the project scope, is being used by wikipedia, it should be kept per Commons:Not_censored. Monty845 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I hate to say it, but, it is being used and regardless of "not being censored" it's acceptable to have this image on Commons as it is (thankfully) our only illustration of this sexual act. Better a drawing than real people! Missvain (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I hope the picture filters of wikipedia is coming very soon. We have to protect our Childrens of seeing this. -- Gegensystem (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Just don't look at it, if you can't stand it, thats the best image filter you can/will get. Otherwise perfectly in scope and i also pfeffere a simple drawing in this case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I hope our children can be protected from people like Gegensystem. --Don-kun (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- This comment is personal and stupid! And i ignore it (you). -- Gegensystem (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Please protect our children from positions like this. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 09:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We don't care about the legality of what our media depict, as long as the media itself is legal. In use, not censored. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
the w:donkey punch is a myth/hoax; there is no need to illustrate how to do something that does not work. The only appropriate illustration would depict the actual likely repercussions of an attempt to perform this act. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
![04:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/02/09#c-John_Vandenberg-2012-02-09T04:27:00.000Z-File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif){kind=link}
Comment - this image was kept at DR 5 months ago - Commons:Deletion requests/File:TTSGA.gif. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There's an article about it on Wikipedia (you link to it), thus the subject is notable and there are no better images. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; no discernible educational value. --JN466 11:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- note that this image was in use in that en.wikipedia article until it was deleted by Delicious carbuncle two days ago... meh. Keep - why should a myth which is even relevant enough to have an Wikipedia article not be allowed to be depicted?! COM:NOTCENSORED, thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 19:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's the educational value of the image though? If we want to educate people, we need to (and do) tell them that this is an urban legend, and that in real life it would be a very poor idea indeed to hit someone like that. It might leave them paralysed, or dead. This image is of no help here in delivering that message; rather the contrary. --JN466 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- So add a third frame: coitus, punch, gravestone. DS (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- So what you're suggesting is that making the animation more explicitly about murdering a woman would somehow make it more educational? --JN466 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, a third frame: woman in neck brace with angry expression, man in handcuffs while being led away by police. DS (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- So what you're suggesting is that making the animation more explicitly about murdering a woman would somehow make it more educational? --JN466 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - We are not here to editorialise. The image was in use, for a long time, so clearly it is educational. Even if not in use now, it was in use and so would be better left for people viewing the page history. Otherwise... well, it's an image depicting an act which is notable enough to have a wikipedia article, that is the sort of thing we routinely provide images for. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- So add a third frame: coitus, punch, gravestone. DS (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Saibo, you appear to be confusing "deletion" with "removal". I removed the animation from the article. I did not delete it - that is the discussion that is happening here. The animation is cartoonish and unnecessary. The text describes what is alleged to happen - the animation does not increase the reader's understanding. I have no opinion of whether or not the animation should be deleted here, but it does not belong in that article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- yawn... --Saibo (Δ) 03:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- What's the educational value of the image though? If we want to educate people, we need to (and do) tell them that this is an urban legend, and that in real life it would be a very poor idea indeed to hit someone like that. It might leave them paralysed, or dead. This image is of no help here in delivering that message; rather the contrary. --JN466 20:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per mattbuck. Salvio giuliano (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above --Japs 88 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Is this like Wikipedia, where everything someone doesn't like gets renominated for deletion every six months until it dies, regardless of the merits? N.B. in response to "The only appropriate illustration would depict the actual likely repercussions of an attempt to perform this act", I wouldn't mind if someone wants to add a third comic frame showing the guy getting his mug shot while the lady in a neck brace points him out angrily. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- You've ignored the basis for deletion. The previous DR was focused on whether Commons is censored. If it were an animation of an actual sex act, or steps to make a bomb, "not censored" would be a valid argument. However, in this DR I am saying the animation is erroneous and therefore it is disinformation and promotion of a hoax. It would be like having an animation of a severed yet "re-animated" head of an evil scientist forc[ing] a zombie father to strip his beautiful daughter so he, the evil head, can lick her naked body from the bedpan he's sitting in and--yes--even go down on her.[1]. (that is the same source used for "Donkey punch") John Vandenberg (chat) 09:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if you can draw that I'll do my part in voting to keep. I'm not sure we have a Wikipedia article we can use it in, but [with inclusionistic glee] I'm not altogether sure we don't. :) Wnt (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - the nom is correct - file is not educational at all, but is promotion of a hoax. 80.1.157.212 01:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Should we remove all illustrations of dragons because they are hoaxes ? Léna (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, because there is a long and culturally notable history of artwork depicting dragons in secular, religious and alchemical contexts. So of course we would have examples in Commons, they are educational. You can find educational sources in the real world that contain such images. (Depictions of dragons have the added advantage of not modelling behaviour that might break someone's neck.) Cheers, --JN466 01:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Since doesn't exist. Now all the castration articles could use that person's talents, don't you think? One for ritual, one for punitive, one for crime, one for transsexual operation, etc. since I'm sure there are all sorts of techniques. Let's keep this encyclopedic! Carolmooredc (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you have a point there. w:Sex reassignment surgery is completely unillustrated! Isn't there one of those quack doctors who would CC-license a surgery video for us to use? Certainly it would be a useful improvement to the article. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This issue is an urban myth, one that could lead to serious injury or death. The image is the very opposite of educational. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This will always be an ongoing discussion here or on the talk page. The animation is actually OK in my opinion considering the nature of the subject. The Foundation has expressed the importance of images while editors (along with scholars) have written essays on how we all take in content differently.
- Not using actual photographs has been a good thing for the project since we can illustrate images while at least tempering the knee-jerk reactions. But the alternative to such an image is an actual photograph of someone (I'll be the receiver or giver if we really want to start taking pictures). it all comes down to an image assisting the article. if you don't want to see it you have the following options: Don't search for such a vile subject 2: Adjust your settings. Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please have another think. Haven't you just gone automatically into NOTCENSORED mode because the image may be offensive? Offensiveness is not a reason to delete, but in itself offensiveness is not a reason to keep an image, either. To be in scope, it has to be educational, which means “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. That comes first. It is the basic requirement, before any thoughts of offensiveness and ignoring offensiveness come into play. So, what legitimate knowledge, instruction or information does this image actually provide? As far as I can see, it provides misinformation, and potentially life-threatening misinformation at that, by creating the impression that this is a sexual practice that is actually performed, and potentially tempting some ignorant kid to try it. What is the educational purpose here – teaching someone how to break a girl's or woman's neck and land yourself in jail? Can you imagine any bona fide educational source that would feature this image? Bear in mind that this animation has been viewed close to half a million times over the past quarter of a year. If there isn't an educational purpose, are we keeping it for lulz then? --JN466 05:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe we don't see the same things in this picture, so I'm going to explain what I see. I see a man being extremely violent to a woman for his sole pleasure and the woman being in incredible pain and danger, especially in the second part of the animation. I think the violence of the hoax is really more accessible with this animation than with "just" text, in the same way pictures in Category:Graph theory make complex notions more easily understandable. I think it says a lot about American culture, especially its vision of sexuality and men/women relationships, that such a hoax could occur and become popular. Léna (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Please as already said COM:NOTCENSORED. The image is violent, we can describe it more accurately. We can also put a warning we are not bound to neutrality as on wikipedia. I would rather have this hoax described and clearly illustrated with the good warning than censored. PierreSelim (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Commons is fucked. End of my uncensored statement. Carrite (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Idiotic misogynistic original art, without socially redeeming value. Does ORIGINAL RESEARCH mean anything here? Doubtful. Carrite (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- To answer your question, Original Research is not an argument here. OR material is acceptable on Commons. Also please see COM:NPOV VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 08:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, we're happy with original research here, we just don't like personal artwork without educational use. That this image was in use for a long time implies it was educational. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- To answer your question, Original Research is not an argument here. OR material is acceptable on Commons. Also please see COM:NPOV VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 08:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a new keep argument: a recently created animation is comparatively old, therefore it is educationally significant. The mind boggles. At en-WP we call this WP:ILIKEIT... Carrite (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per simple decency and common sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you give any further insight into that? Decency is not an issue because there are no real people, and common sense is remarkably uncommon. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is badgering part of the normal protocol here? Carrite (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - conveys nothing beyond what would be conveyed in words, so no educational value. An image that could incite or normalise violence is something we should be very careful about holding, and only keep if it truly serves a real purpose. To quote a recent Arbcom ruling on en-wiki, Notcensored should be the start of a discussion, not the end of it. Jheald (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no, that "educational value" riff is an argument against its inclusion at en.wp, not an argument for it being deleted here. We don't have a donkey punch article, we just host pictures, and given it was in use for years, it has educational value. Further, we don't care about what Arbcom say. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Commons is not your image repository. If an image has no educational value, it has no place being here. As for en.Arbcom, no they don't set the rules here -- but we can still recognise when they have talked good sense. Jheald (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is an example of extremely poor reasoning from Mattbuck, and not the only one on this page. The article that used the image also said, for three years, that "When used, the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the penetrating partner (see orgasm control).[3]" The sourcing for this was http://gawker.com/news/rape-is-comedy-gold/patrice-oneal-explains-donkey+punching-on-fox-news-260907.php – a talk show where they were discussing jokes. The fact that something ludicrous was in an article that clearly lacked any kind of quality control, and was cobbled together by editors unable or unwilling to produce quality work, does not mean that such content thereby becomes "educational". (By the way, what en:WP arbcom said was at least partly based on what the Wikimedia Foundation board said, addressing Commons in particular.) --JN466 12:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, you don't understand what I'm saying. I am saying that the arguments that "it could be conveyed in words" is not a reason for its removal on Commons. Why? Because we don't do words. We do pictures, sounds and video, we don't want text. This image illustrated the en.wp article for several years, therefore it has shown educational usage, regardless of whether it is in use now. We could show many of our images in words, but that doesn't mean we should delete the images. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- This image illustrated the en.wp article for several years is similar to This false argument/fact/statement has been placed within the en.wp article for several years so tough luck for you, now it is educational and you have to shut up.. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- "years" is clearly false. The animated image was uploaded in October 2010, so it has been only a year and four months. There was an RFC about the single frame File:Donkey punch.jpg, and the little feedback given indicated that the community didnt feel that the article needed illustration. Flyingfeck than created an animation and added it to the article with the edit summary "image added as per talk page", which is not what the RFC suggested. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- This image illustrated the en.wp article for several years is similar to This false argument/fact/statement has been placed within the en.wp article for several years so tough luck for you, now it is educational and you have to shut up.. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, you don't understand what I'm saying. I am saying that the arguments that "it could be conveyed in words" is not a reason for its removal on Commons. Why? Because we don't do words. We do pictures, sounds and video, we don't want text. This image illustrated the en.wp article for several years, therefore it has shown educational usage, regardless of whether it is in use now. We could show many of our images in words, but that doesn't mean we should delete the images. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no, that "educational value" riff is an argument against its inclusion at en.wp, not an argument for it being deleted here. We don't have a donkey punch article, we just host pictures, and given it was in use for years, it has educational value. Further, we don't care about what Arbcom say. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As long we are talking about a putative "maybe" situation (urban legend), this image is misleading and hence not of any educational scope - just as useful as showing how Caesar's voice rang. The keep-fraction only shows the false argument "not censored" which - as usual - passes fully the arguments of the deletion debate here. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete You know, I was going to put together an argument against this based on the educational value of adding an illustration to a hoax article, but that isn't my main reason to oppose. This is a DISGUSTING, GRATUITOUS PORTRAYAL OF FANTASY SEXUAL VIOLENCE THAT HAS NO PLACE IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. People need to stop pretending this is some sort of patriotic free speech BS and admit they just like the idea of putting shocking, violent porn on Wikipedia for the kiddies to see. --JaGa (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for being honest at least. Let me destroy your argument one statement at the time. 1) This is not a vote, it is about the strength of your arguments, if you aren't able to come up with a good argument perhaps that's because the image should be kept. 2) Illustration on the artile about a hoax is educational if it's stated that it's a hoax, and also don't confuse hoax article (that's an article that isn't really an article?) and an article about a hoax. 3) Commons is not an encyclopaedia. 4) Commons is not sencored, and we have disgusting and sexual things here; we also have things which are both sexual and disgusting. 5) Commons is an international project, nothing about it is "patriotic". 6) COM:NOTCENSORED is a policy not BS. 6) This file doesn't reside on Wikipedia, it resides on Commons, you are making this statement on Commons, there is a logo of Commons on this site in the plain sight, how hard it this to understand? 7) Mediawiki is a collection of projects for adults and elderly as well as "kiddies". 8) Even if children will see this image, i think that putting it in the context is a better thing than censoring it. That is called being rational and not reactional. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Who said anything about a vote? 2) What educational value is there of illustrating a sexual practice that doesn't exist? The illustration helps create the illusion that it is not a hoax, by saying, "hey, this is an urban myth, and here's how it works". Why not give me an animation of unaided human-powered Earth flight as well? "Here's a guy flapping his arms like wings, and here he is flying! This is a myth of course." That doesn't improve the educational value of an article; it confuses it. 3) True, far from it. 4) True, it isn't "sencored", but it isn't a porn warehouse either, is it? Or maybe it is? 5) Your interpretation of the policy is where the BS comes from 6) And I'll make sure it stays out of EN wiki 7) Duh 8) Yeah, giving people a "how to" illustration of violent, imaginary sexual acts is a great thing for society. It would be one thing if it was an actual thing. But it isn't, is it? That makes this all just so gratuitous and pointless. --JaGa (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- 1) You said that you couldn't be bothered to write an argument and simply put {{Vd}} in the beginning of that. 2) Category:Perpetual motion machines has tons of stuff that simply won't work. And if somebody creates an image of unpowered human flight i would argue that it should be kept. 4) It is not a porn warehouse, it's a warehouse of all educationally useful media whether you like that media or not. 5) The policy states that Commons is an international project, it is not "interpretation" and it is not BS. 6) If you are an admin on En.Wiki you should have those rights taken away for abusing your powers, if you are not then you have no power over what is there. 8) No, a good thing for the society is to place this image in context, your attempt to twist my words has failed. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 22:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- 1) Who said anything about a vote? 2) What educational value is there of illustrating a sexual practice that doesn't exist? The illustration helps create the illusion that it is not a hoax, by saying, "hey, this is an urban myth, and here's how it works". Why not give me an animation of unaided human-powered Earth flight as well? "Here's a guy flapping his arms like wings, and here he is flying! This is a myth of course." That doesn't improve the educational value of an article; it confuses it. 3) True, far from it. 4) True, it isn't "sencored", but it isn't a porn warehouse either, is it? Or maybe it is? 5) Your interpretation of the policy is where the BS comes from 6) And I'll make sure it stays out of EN wiki 7) Duh 8) Yeah, giving people a "how to" illustration of violent, imaginary sexual acts is a great thing for society. It would be one thing if it was an actual thing. But it isn't, is it? That makes this all just so gratuitous and pointless. --JaGa (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for being honest at least. Let me destroy your argument one statement at the time. 1) This is not a vote, it is about the strength of your arguments, if you aren't able to come up with a good argument perhaps that's because the image should be kept. 2) Illustration on the artile about a hoax is educational if it's stated that it's a hoax, and also don't confuse hoax article (that's an article that isn't really an article?) and an article about a hoax. 3) Commons is not an encyclopaedia. 4) Commons is not sencored, and we have disgusting and sexual things here; we also have things which are both sexual and disgusting. 5) Commons is an international project, nothing about it is "patriotic". 6) COM:NOTCENSORED is a policy not BS. 6) This file doesn't reside on Wikipedia, it resides on Commons, you are making this statement on Commons, there is a logo of Commons on this site in the plain sight, how hard it this to understand? 7) Mediawiki is a collection of projects for adults and elderly as well as "kiddies". 8) Even if children will see this image, i think that putting it in the context is a better thing than censoring it. That is called being rational and not reactional. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep — Notable phenomenon with encyclopedic value and educational. Licensed under appropriate free use licensing status. Existing entries at English Wikipedia, as well as Danish Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, French Wiktionary, and Mandarin Wiktionary. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per mattbuck. There is/was canvassing related to this deletion request here. --В и к и в и н др е ц и 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Please also see deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rick santorum caricature satire made with frothy santorum pic 1.jpg, where somewhat similar issues are being discussed. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think those are especially similar. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
.gif&diff=prev&oldid=66895999){kind=link}
- Delete - only upload, probable copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Got anything to back that up? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is the responsibility of those that argue for keep to show that this is original work by the uploader. Also COM:PRP. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's derived from other images on Commons, originally created by user:Rama. See File:Donkey punch.jpg. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Uploader had not given his source for that frame. Also, Rama's drawing is likely derived from a photo - there is nothing to suppport his capabilities of making free-hand drawings just from imagination (or from life?). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's derived from other images on Commons, originally created by user:Rama. See File:Donkey punch.jpg. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is the responsibility of those that argue for keep to show that this is original work by the uploader. Also COM:PRP. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Got anything to back that up? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep To those arguing that it should be deleted because it has "no discernible educational value", please take another look at COM:SCOPE, specifically, A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough...It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope. This file was in use on en-wp until very recently, and the removal is disputed. Further, it remains in use on en-quote. Because it is legitimately in use in a WMF project, it is automatically in scope. cmadler (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- @Cmadler (talk · contribs), note that it was also used on Spanish Wikipedia until recently removed, diff. Prior to that removal, it had also been on that site's page with no dispute, since 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cirt created q:Donkey punch just now, and Cirt has also created Category:Donkey punch (badly constructed with any free image in flickr tag 'donkey punch'). I have notified the Spanish Wikipedians who used this image and the single frame version which proceeded it.[2][3] John Vandenberg (chat) 01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I did do quite a bit of research and create the en.wikiquote entry, thanks for crediting me! :) We'll have to agree to respectfully disagree regarding your opinion on my construction of the category. :( -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Abstain Not having heard of this awful (presumed) sex act before, I found this illustration educational in comprehendingthis illustration seems to have misled me about what was being described, judging by Jayen466's porn clips below. Being a myth should be no disqualification, we keep images illustrating dragons, unicorns, and angels, after all. I should hope the Wikipedia article this illustrates explains that this act is dangerous and ineffective. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC) ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Educational, at least if you consider it within the commons scope to educate boys to view women as sex objects and punching bags. Merely hosting the image legitimises the act. Lankiveil (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC).
- So us hosting this little lot legitimises the Final Solution? Does this legitimise child molestation, homophobia and the crusades? No, that argument is complete and utter bollocks. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any animated depictions in those categories .. do you see one in there? Even still, an animated depiction of real historical events, provided it is reasonable accurate, is a very different issue to an animated depiction of an act which has no significant historical relevance and has no scientific basis as far as we know. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's got both. There's even a film based on it, Donkey Punch (film). -- Cirt (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I said significant historical relevance, as you are no doubt aware that I know of the film and other very modern and insignificant pop cultural references, and you have yet to prove scientific basis. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's pretty spurious to argue we should delete everything on Commons that lacks "scientific basis" and yet does hold some degree of pop cultural references. -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- More comprehension problems. nobody has argued to delete everything like that. I said animated depictions like that, and I am referring to one animated depiction. I am able to judge each image separately when they are edge cases and make up my own mind about their educational value, and I hope that others do the same - with all of our opinions on these edge cases, we have broad editorial oversight without needing policy to dictate every decision. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Glad we can agree that "scientific basis" is not the only metric. :) -- Cirt (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are once more demonstrating your inability to comprehend. I never suggested "scientific basis" is the only metric, so it is silly to sad we're in agreement about it. Moreover, Cirt, we are not in agreement on the aspect of "scientific basis" with regards to this image. If you read my comments here, for this specific image I am very keenly concerned about the lack of scientific basis and therefore the ability to misinform the public by overly-simplistic depictions. For a topic such as this, and an animation which is intended to be assist someone understand a topic, I consider scientific basis to be one of the most important criteria. I do not classify this image as art. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is art, in the same manner that File:DCNG-levrette.jpg is art. -- Cirt (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are once more demonstrating your inability to comprehend. I never suggested "scientific basis" is the only metric, so it is silly to sad we're in agreement about it. Moreover, Cirt, we are not in agreement on the aspect of "scientific basis" with regards to this image. If you read my comments here, for this specific image I am very keenly concerned about the lack of scientific basis and therefore the ability to misinform the public by overly-simplistic depictions. For a topic such as this, and an animation which is intended to be assist someone understand a topic, I consider scientific basis to be one of the most important criteria. I do not classify this image as art. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Glad we can agree that "scientific basis" is not the only metric. :) -- Cirt (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- More comprehension problems. nobody has argued to delete everything like that. I said animated depictions like that, and I am referring to one animated depiction. I am able to judge each image separately when they are edge cases and make up my own mind about their educational value, and I hope that others do the same - with all of our opinions on these edge cases, we have broad editorial oversight without needing policy to dictate every decision. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's pretty spurious to argue we should delete everything on Commons that lacks "scientific basis" and yet does hold some degree of pop cultural references. -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I said significant historical relevance, as you are no doubt aware that I know of the film and other very modern and insignificant pop cultural references, and you have yet to prove scientific basis. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's got both. There's even a film based on it, Donkey Punch (film). -- Cirt (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any animated depictions in those categories .. do you see one in there? Even still, an animated depiction of real historical events, provided it is reasonable accurate, is a very different issue to an animated depiction of an act which has no significant historical relevance and has no scientific basis as far as we know. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- So us hosting this little lot legitimises the Final Solution? Does this legitimise child molestation, homophobia and the crusades? No, that argument is complete and utter bollocks. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Tasteless and badly drawn piece of junk. Little or no encyclopedic value.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- In order of your arguments: not relevant for deletion, not relevant for deletion, and was/is in use in several places so i/small> 08:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wikiwind (talk · contribs) raised a concern about canvassing at both [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Donkey_punch%22_(animated).gift's within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- In order of your arguments: not relevant for deletion, not relevant for deletion, and was/is in use in several places so i/small> 08:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some people might go to the wall to defend this image, I would not. It is part of a longstanding problem of people uploading mediocre sexual images to Commons. I voted delete knowing that it would not be popular, but that's the way it is.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is another aspect to this, which is that even such donkey punches as have been performed by porn actors to cash in on this urban legend don't look like this. Porn actors are aware that breaking their co-stars' necks is not on the script. There is nothing educational or encyclopedic about the content and intent of this image uploaded by "User:Flyingfeck", whatsoever. --JN466 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone seems to be agreed that this GIF animation depicts a fantasy scenario. There is no third frame showing the woman in a wheelchair or dead. It is unclear how the educational aspect occurs in this image. Also, it is obvious that frames 1 and 2 are not the work of the same artist. This is the sort of image that can generate the COM:NOTCENSORED response, but it also has to be borne in mind that material on Commons must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.--Ianmacm (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Read the point right below where you linked: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. cmadler (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is an exception to the rule. There is nothing to stop someone adding the image to an article once it has been uploaded, but that does not automatically mean that it is a good idea to have it. This crudely drawn image image depicts fantasy violence in a way that is both inaccurate and potentially dangerous. Sadly, this is not the first time that every rule in the book has been used to justify low value sexual images on Commons, but on this occasion there is a need to take a few steps back, and ask questions such as "would a mainstream academic journal publish this image?"--Ianmacm (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Out of all the things that Commons is not, it is definitely not a mainstream academic journal. I myself do strive for a higher standard in my uploads, but that means that we should improve the quality, not delete stuff. I say that if people don't like the image and have some artistic skills, they should draw a better version. I would but i can't. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 06:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- If I was involved with writing the article w:donkey punch (which I'm not) I would not touch this image with a ten foot pole. It is hastily cobbled together and the fact that it is copyright free and available is irrelevant. Images used in articles should meet a minimum technical and artistic standard, this one does not. I would suggest deleting it, but better still not using it in any articles unless something better is available.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- People actually involved in writing the article get to make decisions about which images they use. If you want an option on whether or not to use this in an article, you need to edit the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- If I was involved with writing the article w:donkey punch (which I'm not) I would not touch this image with a ten foot pole. It is hastily cobbled together and the fact that it is copyright free and available is irrelevant. Images used in articles should meet a minimum technical and artistic standard, this one does not. I would suggest deleting it, but better still not using it in any articles unless something better is available.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Out of all the things that Commons is not, it is definitely not a mainstream academic journal. I myself do strive for a higher standard in my uploads, but that means that we should improve the quality, not delete stuff. I say that if people don't like the image and have some artistic skills, they should draw a better version. I would but i can't. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 06:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is an exception to the rule. There is nothing to stop someone adding the image to an article once it has been uploaded, but that does not automatically mean that it is a good idea to have it. This crudely drawn image image depicts fantasy violence in a way that is both inaccurate and potentially dangerous. Sadly, this is not the first time that every rule in the book has been used to justify low value sexual images on Commons, but on this occasion there is a need to take a few steps back, and ask questions such as "would a mainstream academic journal publish this image?"--Ianmacm (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Read the point right below where you linked: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose. cmadler (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone seems to be agreed that this GIF animation depicts a fantasy scenario. There is no third frame showing the woman in a wheelchair or dead. It is unclear how the educational aspect occurs in this image. Also, it is obvious that frames 1 and 2 are not the work of the same artist. This is the sort of image that can generate the COM:NOTCENSORED response, but it also has to be borne in mind that material on Commons must be realistically useful for an educational purpose.--Ianmacm (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is another aspect to this, which is that even such donkey punches as have been performed by porn actors to cash in on this urban legend don't look like this. Porn actors are aware that breaking their co-stars' necks is not on the script. There is nothing educational or encyclopedic about the content and intent of this image uploaded by "User:Flyingfeck", whatsoever. --JN466 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Some people might go to the wall to defend this image, I would not. It is part of a longstanding problem of people uploading mediocre sexual images to Commons. I voted delete knowing that it would not be popular, but that's the way it is.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Related deletion discussion, for an image this one was partially inspired by, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:DCNG-levrette.jpg. -- Cirt (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "there is no need to illustrate how to do something that does not work" What kind of argument is this? Why don't we delete flagellants pics and illustrations? Absurd. Montgomery (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is: A "real" donkeypunch is different. What we see here is someone's phantasy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- How is a "real" one different? I read the article, this is a fairly reasonable depiction IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- E.g. the cited website here does not speak of the neck. But maybe the source as used wikipedia as source itself. Aslong no other sources can be provided, I claim that only I know the truth. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Close enough IMO to be within the bounds. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Per COM:NPOV the argument along the lines of "this image is wrong", is not acceptable unless there is an agreed and established case where only one way of representing something is correct and that the error is not popular enough to merit its own illustration. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bullshit, neck and head are so different. The image is NOT correct, WHERE IS THE SOURE? --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- E.g. the cited website here does not speak of the neck. But maybe the source as used wikipedia as source itself. Aslong no other sources can be provided, I claim that only I know the truth. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- How is a "real" one different? I read the article, this is a fairly reasonable depiction IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is: A "real" donkeypunch is different. What we see here is someone's phantasy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment If you'd like to see what it looks like in a porn movie, see these clips. For those who don't want to see it, suffice it to say that it does look completely different from this animation—because the kind of punch that is shown in this animation would kill the woman, or paralyse her for life. It's a joke drawing, and in very poor taste. Also worth reading: [4]. --JN466 21:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
![21:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/02/09#c-Jayen466-2012-02-13T21:26:00.000Z-File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif){kind=link}
- No one is suggesting it be done, nor is hosting the image endorsing it. We have many other images of torture/etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The information from the link should definitely be added to the wikipedia article, and perhaps we should add a link to the description page of the image. And keep in mind that we can't spread the info if we censor. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 23:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're not listening, Mattbuck. Even in those cases where adult film makers have asked actors to perform a donkey punch, to cash in on the urban legend, it does not look like it does in this animation. The animation is pure fantasy, and nasty fantasy at that. --JN466 14:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Entirely comprised of original research. As several editors have pointed out, this isn't even an accurate depiction. This file has no legitimate educational value and is out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We're here to provide an image server for other Wikimedia projects. En.WP has demonstrated that there is a use, even if it is borderline and controversial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I might have gone with that argument three years ago. But since then it's become clear that this rule "it's educational if it is or has been in use in a project" is gamed. We need a better definition of educational quality than "Oh, User:Flyingfuck inserted it in an en:WP article, so it must be educational" because, as definitions of "educational value" go, that one's pathetic. --JN466 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Even if we change the definition just for this image, it's still going to be a keeper. The image wasn't "inserted by some user to keep", rather it was on the page for 2 years, and then all of the sudden it was deleted. If anything it's the deletionists who are gaming the system by removing the image and then proposing it for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was in a poorly-referenced, shite article with unreliable and mispresented sources; inserted by User:Flyingfeck, whose edit history indicates anything but an interest in education. Since this deletion request started, the image has been inserted on about a dozen distinct and mostly new pages in Wiktionary, and it was added to a newly created page in Wikiquote ... Pathetic. --JN466 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- True, but some people here do not give a fuck about that, sadly. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was in a poorly-referenced, shite article with unreliable and mispresented sources; inserted by User:Flyingfeck, whose edit history indicates anything but an interest in education. Since this deletion request started, the image has been inserted on about a dozen distinct and mostly new pages in Wiktionary, and it was added to a newly created page in Wikiquote ... Pathetic. --JN466 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to change policy, go argue it on a policy page. This image is clearly currently in use on multiple Wikis, and is thus in scope as per policy. You don't like that, go argue on COM:SCOPE, not here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Even if we change the definition just for this image, it's still going to be a keeper. The image wasn't "inserted by some user to keep", rather it was on the page for 2 years, and then all of the sudden it was deleted. If anything it's the deletionists who are gaming the system by removing the image and then proposing it for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It was inserted as a hoax. NOTCENSORED ahould not mean we should keep any old piece of mysogynist crap.--Peter cohen 15:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I might have gone with that argument three years ago. But since then it's become clear that this rule "it's educational if it is or has been in use in a project" is gamed. We need a better definition of educational quality than "Oh, User:Flyingfuck inserted it in an en:WP article, so it must be educational" because, as definitions of "educational value" go, that one's pathetic. --JN466 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Commons needs to be shut down by WMF and images should be hosted by the various language Wikipedias. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It’s interesting how Jayen466 criticize using this image on a newly created pages on Wiktionary, but don’t mention his failed attempt to remove image from Spanish Wikipedia. Fortunately, a female administrator of Spanish Wikipedia reverted his edits. This is a part of what she wrote to him: ....If you delete (the image) there, a bot will delete it here. But removing it to say in the debate "is not in use" is called sabotage. Let the Commons community make their own decisions....By the way, I am woman and I have no problem with insertion and use of encyclopedic images. I completely agree with her comment.--В и к и в и н др е ц и 18:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted the image from the Spanish article well before this deletion request was started, and did so because of my prior work on the English article. I had no intention of nominating the image for deletion here, because I'm not usually a masochist. --JN466 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Besides, "not in use" has never been written here. So your comment is useless. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted the image from the Spanish article well before this deletion request was started, and did so because of my prior work on the English article. I had no intention of nominating the image for deletion here, because I'm not usually a masochist. --JN466 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There was a similar image related controversy in April 2010, covered at w:Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. The donkey punch image, although not child porn, highlights how easy it is for mediocre and controversial sexual images to be uploaded to Commons. Most serious publications would not want this image even if it was free, so there does need to be a look at quality control on Commons once again (BTW if User:Flyingfeck actually is the author of this image I would be extremely surprised).--Ianmacm (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia Review, the originator was an Encyclopedia Dramatica editor who did it for the lulz, and because Wikipedia editors were actually stupid enough to ask for an image on the talk page: [5] The funniest quote from that log is,
- [2010-10-21 05:42:51] <mr_bean> the best part is that they're actually asking for it in the talk page
- [2010-10-21 05:42:59] <ptime> lol --JN466 19:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia Review, the originator was an Encyclopedia Dramatica editor who did it for the lulz, and because Wikipedia editors were actually stupid enough to ask for an image on the talk page: [5] The funniest quote from that log is,
- If someone in es:WP says "Wikipedia editors were actually stupid enough", it´s considerated a personal attack. I don´t know how stuffs works here, but doesn't look very polite. I have no particular interest in the picture. I have no doubts if the image is deleted in Commons will be deleted in es:WP. There are lot of bots who use to do that. As user with 800 edits in Commons, and admin in es:WP I know the rules very well.
The real problem here is that an user deleted the picture from es:WP and that was used as excuse to delete "because is not longer in use". That's not true. The picture were there for 2 years without any problem. Deleted or not is not a matther from es:WP. But if someone delete the picture and immediately says "is not longer in use, we can delete it" that in es:WP is not other than "disruption". If there are good arguments, picture will be deleted. If not, will kept. But please, delete things to win a point is not admisible. Even if no one says -yet- the picture is not longer in use, is not admissible in the future. Is there is a problem in en:WP, there is no reason to bring it to es:WP. Solve the future of the image here, and accordingly we will know what to do with it. Regards. --Andrea (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
![20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/02/09#c-Andreateletrabajo-2012-02-14T20:03:00.000Z-File:"Donkey_punch"_(animated).gif){kind=link}
- What the hell are u talking about, who deleted which picture, and where is the "not in use" argument in THIS deletion debate? --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I see polite is not common in this place. I said "even if someone in the future try to deleted because is not longer in use, that´s not true". --Andrea (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Please delete. I am a woman from a working class background. I didn't weigh in on the article's talk page because frankly, I wouldn't know how to deal with the arguments put forward by the people desperate to keep the animated image in the article without tearing my hair out. Cptnono re-inserted the animated image into the article and put 'vent on the talk page' in his edit summary in reply to my deleting it. To me, the arguments put forward here in favor of keeping this gif are on a level with your esteemed user Russavia taunting Natka Brown on Jimbo's talk page with regards to [6] Natka trying to explain why she wouldn't accidentally like to come across a masturbation video on Commons when working with her granddaughter by her side. I'm all in favor of free speech where it's appropriate, but this is not the place. How about just doing the right thing? DracoEssentialis (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- What does your gender have to do with COM:SCOPE??? If you don't want to see images of dunkey punch, then why did you go to that page? The world does not owe you the right not to be offended, it's a construct of the recent years that is actually defending misogyny, so if anything you are siding with your enemy right now. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- So in your opinion the desire to read an article should equate to a desire to view an imbecilic drawing uploaded by a smart troll? What a bunch of self-serving rationalisation. --JN466 08:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- What does your gender have to do with COM:SCOPE??? If you don't want to see images of dunkey punch, then why did you go to that page? The world does not owe you the right not to be offended, it's a construct of the recent years that is actually defending misogyny, so if anything you are siding with your enemy right now. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per Ianmacm. This has nothing at all to do with censorship or even to do with the fact that the image seems to have been created as a prank. Purely and simply, it is a worthless piece of crap that adds nothing of value to the article. If I ever wanted to know what this particular act of violence would look like if it were drawn by an imbecile, I have a pencil. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The nom's argument is essentially a perfect representation of arguments to avoid. Something being a hoax has no relevance to its article or an image of the subject of the article. It "not working" similarly has no relevance. And then the desire to inform people about the "repercussions" of something the nom calls a hoax is pointless. The articles on the subject in question clearly point out that it doesn't work anyways, so that issue is already dealt with. All the arguments that there is "no encyclopedic value" is opposed by the fact that the image is an illustration of a subject that is currently in use across Wikipedia.
- Therefore, any delete arguments above about "hoax", "doesn't work", "decency", and "no educational value" should be dismissed. Oh look, that gets rid of all of them, doesn't it? SilverserenC
- Delete - Per JaGa, Carrite, and nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I already explained above how the nom's argument isn't actually arguing anything related to an actual argument for deletion. And both JaGa and Carrite's arguments boil down to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, also without any real argument for deletion. And I don't understand how original research applies to the existence of an image at all. That just seems bizarre. SilverserenC
- This image looks like it has wandered in from w:Encyclopedia Dramatica by mistake. Wikipedia readers deserve better than this crudely drawn piece of junk.--Ianmacm (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I already explained above how the nom's argument isn't actually arguing anything related to an actual argument for deletion. And both JaGa and Carrite's arguments boil down to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, also without any real argument for deletion. And I don't understand how original research applies to the existence of an image at all. That just seems bizarre. SilverserenC
Is there a reason to continue?
[edit].gif&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
After canvasing everywhere the vote stands at 13-13, and right now the proposals are moving towards "Let's close Commons down and have only local projects or better yet uninvent wiki all together". The truth of the matter is that nobody is going to close commons or even rewrite project scope just to delete this image... it's too insignificant. If you disagree, try asking people who aren't engaged in this discussion, i went and talked to people, the response is "yeah, it was a hoax, but now it's an image showing a hoax". So shouldn't we just close this discussion and move on to contribute to commons to make it a better place, i have been trying to keep myself away from this discussion and i've uploaded tons of interviews with novelists and journalists that i have found. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 20:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Obiviously you haven't understood the policies and the purpose of commons. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Obiviously it's about trying to post to deletion debates as fast as possible and to have media deleted. Obiviously it's not about providing content to other wikimedia projects and others. Obiviously it's about gaming the system to get your point across. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was not canvassed to come here, and like around 380,000 others this month, saw the image as a result of the media coverage generated by the Jeopardy incident.--Ianmacm (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Obiviously it's about trying to post to deletion debates as fast as possible and to have media deleted. Obiviously it's not about providing content to other wikimedia projects and others. Obiviously it's about gaming the system to get your point across. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: On Commons, we concern ourselves with two main issues. Firstly, and most importantly, only freely-licenced materials can be hosted here. Secondly, and once the freely-licenced aspect is met, materials must be within our scope; in particular the provision of educational media.
Reviewing the history of the file, prior to this DR, I see that the file has seen use on both English Wikipedia (en:Donkey punch) since 21 October 2010[7], and Spanish Wikipedia (es:Donkey punch) since 16 February 2011[8]. Whether other WMF projects use this image is not decided at Commons, but on local projects. Commons should not be used as a tool to skirt local project discussions on usability of media on those projects.
Having said that, there are potential copyright issues with this file, which will not be resolved by way of this DR. There is another DR underway at present, which will determine whether the underlying work on this particular file is kept or deleted. If deleted, this image as a derivative of that work, will also be deleted. If kept, as I noted to an editor here, there are alleged Encyclopedia Dramatica IRC logs which indicate that the uploader is not the "copyright" owner of this image. (Quote: [2010-10-21 05:43:18] <ptime> I'll list it as my own work). As the uploader is not an established member of the community, the image has been marked with {{No permission}}, which is going to require OTRS processing. As mentioned to the editor, if any permission is received, it is going to be a stringent OTRS verification, given the source. russavia (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that author decided to license this image under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Bulwersator (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - a for-wikipedia(-only?) permission is referred to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: For Wikipedia is not a free license Captain-tucker (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#United States. It is placed at en:Kensico Cemetery and looks recent. Stefan4 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are you saying that grave markers are considered "works of art"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the sphere and the cone look artistic, so they could easily be considered as works of art. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- You "think" it is. Where do you draw the line? Is a standard tombstone, with a standardized bas-relief of an angel or something, also a "work of art"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the sphere and the cone look artistic, so they could easily be considered as works of art. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in USA Ezarateesteban 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: © Service communication du Conseil général des Alpes de Haute-Provence Ezarateesteban 13:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Architect died in 1950. 86.198.184.6 04:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France. Quételard died in 1950. 86.198.184.6 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Le_Touquet-Paris-Plage.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Le_Touquet-Paris-Plage.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in France. Quételard died in 1950. 86.198.184.6 04:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Architect died in 1967. 86.198.184.6 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Couple of issues:
- No freedom of panorama in Italy. Photographs of copyrighted three-dimensional works of art cannot be freely licensed.
It's likely that the photograph comes from krazart.com, where the artist's other sculptures can be found shot in similar style and shown at similar quality: [9], [10] and [11].- File is most likely from here: http://www.sculturacarrara.it/opere_marmo_metafore.htm Ytoyoda (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Likely not the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Used in irrelevant content in Wiktionary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Image appears to be from here: http://www.sculturacarrara.it/opere_marmo_dimensioni.htm. No evidence that uploader owns the rights to the image or to the sculpture. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Image most likely from http://www.sculturacarrara.it/pag1613.htm, freedom of panorama issues. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Image most likely from http://www.sculturacarrara.it/opere_marmo_figurazioni.htm Ytoyoda (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Image from here; http://www.sculturacarrara.it/pag1613.htm Ytoyoda (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Image from http://www.sculturacarrara.it/pag129.htm Ytoyoda (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Image appears to be taken from here and cropped: http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee423/clara-alonso/239175024.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Image from : http://clarisoslamejor.blogspot.com/2011/01/el-regreso-de-clari-al-zz.html Ytoyoda (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Image from: http://clarisoslamejor.blogspot.com/2011/01/el-regreso-de-clari-al-zz.html Ytoyoda (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I dont think this image serves any educational purpose. additionally, i am concerned this image is of a person with a disability, and having a kfc container on his head is insulting and possibly not understood as such by the model Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with nominator.--Japs 88 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, too small Motopark (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: OUt of scope, probably copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted material ChongDae (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyivo Captain-tucker (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by equivalent SVG image. No other wikis used. --Wrightbus (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Túrelio Captain-tucker (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Superseded by equivalent SVG image. No other wikis used. --Wrightbus (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Axpde Captain-tucker (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
image is a somewhat harmless work of art, but i question its appropriateness for our project, and the description MUST be deleted anyway, as we are not a webhosting service for peoples essays. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
poor quality, no educational purpose as suitable for this project Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Picture of a copyrighted book with contents clearly visible Sreejith K (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - old hymns. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing much about the book is given in the file description page or the article it was included in en wiki. But I see that Amish hymnal was first published in 1564. If this book is the same, then it warrants a Keep --Sreejith K (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
errors in scheme Majilo (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Extremely low quality, unused (only in talk page archive) Bulwersator (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I wouldn't even qualify it as "very low quality" much less "extremely low quality". It's not blurred, no watermark, can be quite useful. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
unused and - due to being totally out of focus - unusable image; easily to be replaced by other images in Category:Cricetinae. Túrelio (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image of a non notable individual, no educational value QU TalkQu 12:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal image, unused with an unidentified individual. Of no educational value. QU TalkQu 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Too small for usage, unreadable text. Funfood ␌ 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal image of no educational value QU TalkQu 14:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image of no educational value QU TalkQu 14:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Unofficial logo created by user Wesley☀Mouse 15:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Unofficial logo created by user Wesley☀Mouse 15:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- User:Luciann Mosescu had removed deletion notifications from his talk page Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. I have since reinstated them. Wesley☀Mouse 12:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, see: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QZOo-eFioVgJ:www.evp.snu.edu.ua/abiturientu.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Captain-tucker (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
author unknown, no license available Njrbarros (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, see: http://www.eduhelp.in/groups/17-University-of-Kerala/colleges/756-Younus-College-of-Engineering-Technology/branches Captain-tucker (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Nonsensical and contradictory licensing and PD claims and no verifiable source. The photo does not appear on the stated source page. Author is listed as "none", but clearly someone created the photo. This is obviously not a screenshot of GPL software. There is no evidence to support the claim that the author died more than 70 years ago and that the photo is therefore not protected by copyright. There is also no evidence to support the claim that it is protected by copyright and published under the terms of the Free Art License. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
"TDV Bw" is really no reliable source for this image. There is no proper evidence for PD-GermanGov. 80.187.110.72 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Steinbeisser (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong: the reasoning is more than valid. There is indeed no source given. And it seems that you do not want to give or you are not able to give an evidence for your dubious source . Delete --80.187.96.7 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong: the reasoning is more than valid. There is indeed no source given. And it seems that you do not want to give or you are not able to give an evidence for your dubious source .
Delete that fuckin file if it give you a kick -- Steinbeisser (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, see: http://www.oldiveco.de/fz_profile/08_MK_Baureihe/fz_profil_08.htm Captain-tucker (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Smells of copyvio - bad name, low res, many many many google image hits. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Extremely poor image quality & of no practical use; redundant to other images in this category of this "Ferme Écologique" that are of somewhat better quality Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Unidentified individuals but appears to be a picture of children in a school, so privacy concerns. No educational value. QU TalkQu 21:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Very poor quality unused personal image. No educational value. QU TalkQu 21:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, poor quality, unidentified individual, no educational value QU TalkQu 21:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Personal image, unused, unidentified individual so no educational value QU TalkQu 21:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry low resolution personal image. Unused. No conceivable educational value. QU TalkQu 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Appalling image quality, totally unusable. Not used, personal image of an unidentified individual QU TalkQu 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Individual unidentified. Quality awful.No educational value. QU TalkQu 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Either copyright or advertising. Unused. QU TalkQu 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
private image, unsed GeorgHH • talk 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, see: http://www.thecinemasource.com/blog/movies/the-quiet/attachment/The_Quiet-2-Camilla_Belle/ Captain-tucker (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
private image. unused GeorgHH • talk 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
DW: copyrighted design (the drawing) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. E.g. also see this DR. Saibo (Δ) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:PACKAGE. Ruthven (msg) 08:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator. Clearly COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Copyright problems: Photo seems to be http://consolidatednews.photoshelter.com/image/I0000vI1kEfZna1k and is also credited to Anne Ryan in a Time magazine article; no longer appears to be on USDOT site, and no evidence that is was federal employee work. Closeapple (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
screenshot of non-free software matanya • talk 23:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
What possible educational use does this image serve? Exhibitionist pics have no place here. ~ Fry1989 eh? 03:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep In Category:Scrotum there are many images that deserve to be deleted more than this one.--Japs 88 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Doesn't answer the question, which is: What education use could there be for this photo. Fry1989 eh? 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a freely licenced image released under CC0. This is an educational image showing the stretchability of a scrotum. This image is of reasonable quality it is not blurred nor displays unneeded content. Therefore this image is within scope and should be kept. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --JN466 23:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, freely licensed image and educational value. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: different to another photos in that category Ezarateesteban 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless Bulwersator (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless Bulwersator (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless Bulwersator (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless Bulwersator (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and completely useless Bulwersator (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Probably copied from random website (web resolution) Bulwersator (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, that was simply web interference of OSSR. Currently 13th mech battalion has little bit different logo, however resolution is the same. Here is link on battalion webpage. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- So it was stolen from website with "© 2003-2011 www.mil.sk :: Základňa stacionárnych komunikačných a informačných systémov :: Všetky práva vyhradené" and "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." is untrue Bulwersator (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus, if you don´t know Slovak just ask. Mil.sk is official website of OSSR - Ozbrojené Sily Slovenskej Republiky - Armed Forces of Slovak Republic, which belong to Ministry of Defence as such is public domain. I already wrote you here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:11mechprapor.jpg that licensing is wrong and Im looking for right one. Bytheway do you have any idea what "Základňa stacionárnych komunikačných a informačných systémov" means? EllsworthSK (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- So it was stolen from website with "© 2003-2011 www.mil.sk :: Základňa stacionárnych komunikačných a informačných systémov :: Všetky práva vyhradené" and "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." is untrue Bulwersator (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Yann Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused, can be replaced with text Bulwersator (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused, can be replaced with text Bulwersator (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
_18.47.47.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_18.47.47.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
_18.47.47.png){kind=link}
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
_18.47.47.png){kind=link}
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Useless, it's not visible what it is. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
"Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." Bulwersator (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, indeed a magazine cover is protected. -- Blackcat (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Image is likely not own work, but a screenshot/capture from TV and thereby a copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Per nom. Blackcat (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Dubious "Source Own work" Bulwersator (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The file has EXIF data which might also suggest that the uploader is the actual author (though i too have the reasonable suspect that's not the uploader's work, but there's no apparent evidence of the opposite): can you explain better why you have such doubt? -- Blackcat (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Single upload, Sashamslee sounds rather like fan nickname - but maybe it is really own work, added to illustrate COI article Bulwersator (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I sent an e-mail to the uploader and asked them to get to this page in order to give more information about the file. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Single upload, Sashamslee sounds rather like fan nickname - but maybe it is really own work, added to illustrate COI article Bulwersator (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There's no clear evidence the uploader is also the author; plus the uploader has a story of Jeff Forney's works uploaded on en.wiki and then deleted for copyvio. Blackcat (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
one of a series of images of the same subject, all nearly exactly alike. normally we allow multiple shots of a single subject, but this seems to be so repetitive as to be beyond the scope of the project. one is enough. series is "A close-up of PitX.JPG", where X is 3-13Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete also the rest of the series, this is ridiculous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Blurry version of File:045前面表示.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Though I also suspect this upload to be a copyvio, the above mentioned doesn't prove this as the image on that page is linked in from Commons, so they are using our image. --Túrelio (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's very likely that the image is copyvio, though I can't locate the source. FWIW, it shows up on the athlete's Facebook profile: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=353798837978401&set=a.243168919041394.66434.243149862376633&type=3. --Ytoyoda (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Ytoyoda evidence.--Oleola (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per evidence brought by Ytoyoda. Martin H. (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Source is not a government website; some Indonesian government websites have copyright notices, meaning that under the applicable laws the images are copyrighted. Unless it can be verified that the image does not come from such a site, this should be deleted as a probably copyvio Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Without a link to the original publisher, we cannot see if it was published with or without a copyright notice (key to being PD in Indonesia). Also, the image may not be from the government at all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF data suggest this to be NOT own work. Eventually it's from http://www.miauyeda.com/, but that page is currently updated and doesn't allow to check the gallery. Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused, may be unfree (no evidence of PD status) Bulwersator (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Can be write to some wikipedia, icludes plenty of pictures with unknown author Motopark (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
text is completely original, only some images are downloaded, many are autor's photos
Deleted: Infringes copyrights of architects. Also, most PDFs are not wanted here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Can be write to some wikipedia, icludes plenty of pictures with unknown author Motopark (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Can be write to some wikipedia, icludes plenty of pictures with unknown author Motopark (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Can be write to some wikipedia, icludes plenty of pictures with unknown author Motopark (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Can be write to some wikipedia, icludes plenty of pictures with unknown author Motopark (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Can be write to some wikipedia, icludes plenty of pictures with unknown author Motopark (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think its not from reliable source. P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per copyvio. © 2010-11 Emami Chisel Art Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved. The artwork itself if in PD, but the author of the picture didn't release his/her rights. --Japs 88 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Question Is this not a faithful reproduction of an ancient 2 dimensional work of art, {{PD-Art}} ? --Tony Wills (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per Tony -- clearly PD-Art Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
scanned from some newspaper, see raster in the picture Motopark (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
its my picture and i took it so i see no copyright issue should raise here
Deleted: Clearly scanned. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Grabbed from random website Bulwersator (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Scanned from a 1982 book. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"A mere mechanical reproduction of some other image, such as an unmodified photocopy or scan of a drawing, cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more. That rule applies internationally and, on Commons, is normally taken for granted".
See: Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag
And the image here is PD (Ericsson telephon dated 1900)
So there is no copyright problem here.
Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 09:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The problem here is that we know the date of the book, and the date of the telephone, but we do not know the date of the image. If it was taken when the phone was new, then it may or may not be PD, depending on when the photographer died . If it was taken of a museum piece at the time of the book, then it is definitely not PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality Nika-nika (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The quality is not an issue, but there is no permission. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
While no date is given this looks like an old photograph (going by the poor quality and b/w picture), doubtful PD-self claim and subsequent copyright status. Uploader is a serial copyright violator and the nomination is made as part of this Contributor Copyright Investigation (CCI). File is also orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This file is likely a copyvio, it's very similar to other images uploaded by the user which were lacking in permission by the unidentified original author or sufficient rationale for their license and were therefore deleted. Hekerui (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Uploader :
- Martin Kraft (talk · contribs)
unsuitable format and unneeded duplicate of File:Höhn Wappen.svg --Perhelion (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this file should be deleted--Martin Kraft (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
File:Logo4rm..jpg
File:Brasao 4RM.jpg
File:Brasao 2.jpg
File:Brasao 4Regiao Militar.gif
File:Brasao 4RM.gif
File:Brasao 4RM.gif
File:Brasao4RM.gif
File:Logo 4RM.JPG
File:Brasão 4ª RM.gif
File:Logo original.gif
User has uploaded the same logo 11 times. Pick one and delete the rest. Fry1989 eh? 22:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- We have two groups of files here:
- Group1: File:Brasao 4RM.jpg Delete is scaled down of File:Logo original.gif Keep.
- Group2:
- This one is in use in pt:4ª Região Militar: File:Brasao 2.jpg Delete. This file and
- File:Brasao 4Regiao Militar.gif Delete
- File:Brasao 4RM.gif Delete
- File:Brasao 4RM.gif Delete
- File:Brasao4RM.gif Delete
- File:Logo 4RM.JPG Delete
- File:Logo4rm..jpg Delete
- were smaller versions of File:Brasão 4ª RM.gif Keep. Although File:Logo4rm..jpg has a different color, I guess it was a upload by mistake according to the bright yellow stripe around the red area. I would delete all vd tagged ones as duplicates (and replace the use in the article). A question stays: what is the real source of this coa? Is it PD? From where is the map outline? --Saibo (Δ) 21:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- This one is in use in pt:4ª Região Militar: File:Brasao 2.jpg
Deleted: per Saibo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Misinterpretation of government work license. NRC products can be used but this was produced by NuScale and found on the NRC website. All works of this nature are deleted eventually. Theanphibian (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Drawings on packagings at files in Category:Caprice_des_dieux
[edit](files already reworked) DW: copyrighted design (the drawing) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. E.g. also see this DR.
To the closing admin: please just hide (with revdel) the old file version contents.
Saibo (Δ) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem for me. Admins, you can delete it. As soon as possible I will provide to upload a new picture without the packaging of the cheese :) --Number55★ (after 54, before 56) 13:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, no - it will not be deleted - the images will stay as they are currently. :-) --Saibo (Δ) 14:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: masked the old version contents containing copyvios PierreSelim (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I HAVE REVISED AND UPDATE THE FILE WHICH IS FULL OF ERRORS Anthonywriter (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
SC PAL - PART I (with front page).pdf-this file is revised and updated Anthonywriter (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: We very rarely allow deletion of user talk pages -- there is too much useful information there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
SCIENTIFICThis file PALMISTRY PART IV - DERMATOGLYPHICS, MEDICAL PALMISTRY, VOCATIONAL PALMISTRY.pdf (file)should be deleted as it is full of errors and it has been replaced by the file SCIENTIFIC PALMISTRY(PART IV) REVISSED, today. Please do the needful immediately. Anthonywriter (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept see above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Teachers day.jpg
- File:Investiture.jpg
- File:MoLiCul Stage.jpg
- File:LFHS entrance.jpg
- File:Molicul ship2.jpg
- File:Molicul Trophy.jpg
- File:Molicul Ship.jpg
- File:Montfort portrait.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FilipVtori (talk · contribs)
[edit]images without proper source, everything "own work", despite blatant copyright violations (examples below), source for maps missing
- File:PetarDeljanMakedonskiCar.png
- File:Plakata VMRO-DPMNE.jpg
- File:Dragan Bogdanovski VMRO Kongres.jpg - press photo/screencap
- File:DB-Portret.jpg – old portrait, no proper source
- File:Ednooki.jpeg - taken from [12]
- File:Znacka na VMRO - Prva svetska vojna.png – who made this medal?
- File:Hunzi6544.jpg – press photo, taken in 2008
- File:MKSl.png
- File:Bugarska postenska marka.jpg – stamp with fake authorship and fake license
- File:Grcka karta Prespa.jpg - map of unknown source
- File:SLAVKO PEROVI- - JEDAN DAN -IVOTA.ogg - no permission
- File:Hrvatski Marijachi istorija.ogg - no permission
- File:Meksikanska muzika.png
- File:Karta na Grcko kralstvo.png
- File:GolemataIdeja.png
- File:SrpskiIredentizam.png
- File:EtnickaMakedonija.png
- File:KleopatrasoAsteriksiObeliks.PNG
- File:GaliSelo.png - from Travian browser game
- File:MakedonskoSamoilovoCarstvo.png
- File:MacedonianUprisingPetarDejlan.PNG
- File:MacedonianUprisingPetarDejlan.JPG
Polarlys (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It seems like a mass copyright violation. Moreover, the user is most probably a sockpuppet of Romanski1996 (talk · contribs). I have already raised the issue on a talkpage.--Laveol (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from http://canelaehortela.com/lisboa-rende-se-a-judy-garland-de-la-feria (all rights reserved) André Koehne TALK TO ME 05:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The image reproduction was authorized by the author, I sent the email in which the author has authorized the use of the image to the commons. So I do not understand why it has been proposed for deletion. If you can explain, since the image does not infringe the copyright, why this action? Thanks,--Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Eu não falo inglês; se o email que diz foi feito via OTRS, então não há o que discutir e a proposta de apagamento será apagada pelos administradores; entretanto, se não há a expressa autorização ao Commons, a mídia não poderá ser reproduzida aqui. 177.44.130.138 15:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me: André Koehne TALK TO ME 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- ok, peço desculpa pensei que falava inglês. Sendo assim então não deve de haver problema porque eu fiz via OTRS, a autora autorizou mesmo a reprodução da imagem no commons, fica então o assunto com os administradores. Obrigada, --Shania Twain Portugal (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Verify OTRS, so... André Koehne TALK TO ME 10:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Shania, ter ocorrido se a permissão OTRS já existe? (tr. in English: Shania, have you verified if an OTRS permission exists?) -- Blackcat (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- The OTRS permission exists in what way? I sent the email in which the author authorizes the publication of the image, so the wikimedia commons has access to it, so I do not understand why the image will not be accepted. They explained to me that once I have permission of the author may also publish the file as if it were my own, however I decided to publish it as if it were not, assigning the copyright. My English is bad so do not know if you understood.Shania Twain Portugal (talk)
- O que o meu tutor na wikipedia me explicou foi que se eu tenho autorização formal e específica para carregar no Commons, então, tecnicamente, passo a ser detentora do direito patrimonial do autor (mesmo que não tenha pago) e poderei chamar a obra de minha. Poderei publicar também como imagem da minha autoria, mas a questão é, como é que depois eu confirmo que tive autorização da autora para publicar?Shania Twain Portugal (talk)
- Verify OTRS, so... André Koehne TALK TO ME 10:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I found the relevant OTRS Ticket:2012020510003541 but I cannot read it as I only speak English. Hope this helps. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Peço que aguardem antes de remeterem a imagem para eliminação, uma mensagem já foi enviada à autora para explicitar a licença, aguardo resposta da autora, quando a tiver reenvio para o commons. 89.154.116.172
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
File:Matspi.jpg was uploaded by Addik_200, whose native language appears to be Romanian rather English (ro:Special:Contributions/Addik_200). The user is now inactive. Addik uploaded File:Matspi.jpg with Template:PD-self and "restriced" (I assuming this is a typo of "restricted") in the "Permission" field of Template:Information. The image's description, "Poză cu vara mea!" can either mean, "Photograph of my summer!" or "Photograph of my cousin!" As a result, it's possible that Addik_200 isn't the person in the photo. Is this photo restricted or in the public domain? Can it be both? I don't believe so. It should be noted that all of Addik_200's uploads to the Romanian Wikipedia have been deleted due a lack of sources / licenses:
- http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=File%3AAndrei_Cristea.jpg
- http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=File%3ALicartbac.jpg
I'm afraid that Addik_200 didn't mean to upload this images into the public domain and that Template:PD-self was added unintentionally due to a language barrier. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also doubt that File:Localizare.JPG, which was also uploaded by Addik_200, is truly a free image as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Update: Addik_200 isn't exactly inactive on rowiki anymore: ro:Special:Contributions/Addik_200 (the first few revisions in over a year). I left him or her a message. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Contradictory and questionable licensing, and COM:PRP on consent for publication (COM:IDENT) Rd232 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
better version exists at File:Porcupine Tree - Stupid Dream.jpg Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Superseded Avi (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Procedural nomination. Tagged for speedy deletion with rationale: "meets threshold of originality; copyright is New York's, not uploader's". I declined the speedy because ToO issues must be discussed (they are not clear-cut and obvious). Powers (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; meets the threshold of originality. — Fourthords | =/\= | 04:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Would be okay if the background artwork along the top part were removed, the rest is PD-text. But that portion surpasses the threshold of originality and is not de minimis. No evidence that New York has placed the copyright of this work in the public domain. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted Avi (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The licence requires attributing the author. A version of the image without the words "Morze Bałtyckie" appears on English Wikipedia as en:File:Warmia.PNG but a different author is credited there. In order to keep this, we need to make sure that the correct author is credited. It may help if a plwiki admin could check the file information page for the deleted pl:File:Plemiona pruskie.png in case it contains something useful. The edit summary on English Wikipedia reads "Stolen from Polish Wiki" which could suggest that the credit at English Wikipedia is wrong and that the credit here is correct. Stefan4 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Not published before 1923. FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Dubious "I, the copyright holder of this work" (web resolution) Bulwersator (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This is copyrighted logo of soccer club. Why it is published as own work under cc-by-sa? Dmitry89 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This has been copied from http://www.flickr.com/photos/liturhiya/5987142671/in/photostream/ . I know that on en.wiki that wouldn't (itself) be a problem because it's a slavish reproduction. However with commons policy of having to be usable in the souce country as well I'm not sure what the situation is here as I'm not active enough. That may be moot as I suspect the text is probably copyright although I'm not certain. Dpmuk (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation from http://politrb.com/?p=3097 (published two days before this file) Alex-engraver (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to not be the actual monolith (see short discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Phobos_monolith). Nor does the file's source indicate that it is. Hyarmendacil (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Alain_Régnier,_préfet,_délégué_interministériel_pour_l'hébergement_et_l'accès_au_logement_des_personnes_sans-abri_ou_mal_logées.JPG
[edit]
Copyvio of http://www.gouvernement.fr/gouvernement/sans-abri-un-service-public-de-l-hebergement-et-de-l-acces-au-logement-operationnel-tou Trizek here or on fr:wp 10:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Logo permission unclear, I think its copyrighted by Opel Typ932 (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is, but the question is: is the combination of a circle and a blitz complex enough to exceed {{PD-trivial}} threshold? Does the addition of their tagline make it any more complex? NVO (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: below the threshold of originality (COM:TOO). Rosenzweig τ 19:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
renomiate, because its very obvious its not free logo, same as used in the opel page, just smaller size Typ932 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPEL_2009_logo.png says its copyrighted by General Motors --Typ932 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read Commons:Threshold of originality? And do you know the difference between copyright and trademarks? --Rosenzweig τ 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, because it clearly its not free use, otherwise we would have all car logos here --Typ932 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a confusing reply, and not really an answer to the question. It seems you really do not know the difference between copyright and trademarks. --Rosenzweig τ 14:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, in fact "we" do have logos of (practically) every notable company (not just cars). See how one editor attempted deletion of BMW and Porsche labels. But of course "consensus can change". NVO (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, because it clearly its not free use, otherwise we would have all car logos here --Typ932 (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read Commons:Threshold of originality? And do you know the difference between copyright and trademarks? --Rosenzweig τ 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you notice the difference between this logo and the logo used on the wikipedia, whats the difference? if its free use why we need another logo uploaded to english wikipedia?? --Typ932 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a question you should ask at the English wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, we don't. --Rosenzweig τ 14:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If you put Opel's logo in a 2D representation is basically a circle, a letter "Z" or a ray, and the word "Opel". Neither are original and put them in 3D won't make them original. And no, we can't upload all logos here because many of them are original enough. See 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, as examples. Tbhotch (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The licence here is incorrect. This is a complex logo together with a marketing slogan. It is clearly a copyright image and should only be used on Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Biker Biker (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Long-term copyvio vandal.[13] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Not again. This is a German logo, German threshold of originality is not as strong as the US or the UK. I already described this logo and it is not original by itself. Metallic paint and 3D shapes are not original. Tbhotch™ 20:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep see above. ᛏᛟᚱᚨᚾᚨ 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Typ932 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC).
- Why? --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read above, copyrighted logo --Typ932 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not. Also see above, last deletion request for this file. --Rosenzweig τ 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Trademark
- Not. Also see above, last deletion request for this file. --Rosenzweig τ 14:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read above, copyrighted logo --Typ932 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The marks appearing on this website including, but not limited to: Adam Opel AG, based in Rüsselsheim, Germany and Vauxhall, based in Luton, UK and their respective logos, emblems, slogans and vehicle model names and body designs are trademarks and/or service marks of General Motors Company, its subsidiaries, affiliates or licensors." --Typ932 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Trademark is not the same as copyright, as was already explained to you. --Rosenzweig τ 15:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- "Copyright 2012 Adam Opel AG, based in Rüsselsheim, Germany. All Rights Reserved. All text, images, graphics, animation, videos, music and other materials on this Site are subject to the copyright and other intellectual property rights of Adam Opel AG. These materials may not be reproduced, distributed, modified or reposted to other websites without the express written permission of Adam Opel AG." Seems to be too difficult to understand --Typ932 (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not everything companies claim is true. --Rosenzweig τ 20:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- So you can decide whats not ? or what is the threshold. Nice --Typ932 (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is one of the roles of admins here: To decide such questions. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I dont think that admin role is to override laws. But if you think so just continue on your way --Typ932 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- That is one of the roles of admins here: To decide such questions. --Rosenzweig τ 11:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept - per Commons:TOO --Denniss (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is a version in an appropriate file format: File:Versant logo 2007.png. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
dretrt 200.28.84.28 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There are concerns about this image, and whenever it is simple enough for PD-Ineligible or not. Cambalachero (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, it's just 5 wavy circles on top of each other. Too simple Fry1989 eh? 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Very bad quality, no educative meaning because of being informationally replaced by File:H-ugp-6360.jpg. May be replaced with redirection. PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- File is being used, what about replacing the image first? A.Savin 11:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the file may be replaced with redirection. I simply do not know how to arrange automatic replacement, sorry. Could you please tell me?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The file may be replaced manually what does not seem difficult to me in case of just 4 usages. A.Savin 12:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the file may be replaced with redirection. I simply do not know how to arrange automatic replacement, sorry. Could you please tell me?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question File:H-ugp-6360.jpg is technically superior. However, it is subject to the new 2008 Freedom of panorama in Russia laws which appear to conflict with Commons requirements for FoP.
This older picture is subject to a different FoP statute.
Has the architect of this building been dead over 70 years? If so, this picture would appear to be preferable and would need to be retained since it conforms to Commons requirements.- Being built in 1907 in Russian Empire, the building is not covered by modern laws of Russia.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Please do not nominate files for scope or quality reasons if they are in use. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Though I couldn't find a source as of yet, I doubt that this is the uploaders own work: low-resolution, no EXIF, dated at day of upload. Túrelio (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This image is mine. I took this image by myself on cadena COPE radio chain. Psantanam (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "on cadena COPE radio chain"? Did you take it from their website (http://www.cope.es/)? --Túrelio (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I mean on cadena COPE chain STUDIO by myself, not from the web Psantanam (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- O.k., on which day and with what device did you take it? Could you upload it in a somewhat higher resolution? --Túrelio (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- keep no reason to doubt uploader is author. google image search fails to find online source [14] Slowking4 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Il faut retirer cette photo car je ne donne pas l'autorisation de la publier. Lise Martin (lmbc@free.fr) Atxiki (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bonjour. D'après l'Article 226-1 du code pénal français, seules les images prises " d'une personne se trouvant dans un lieu privé" sont soumises à autorisation préalable. Avez-vous un autre texte de loi sur lequel appuyer votre demande ? Léna (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Cette photo a toutes les chances de rester sur Wikimedia Commons, mais si vous possédez les droits sur une autre photo de vous, ou que l'un de vos proches est prêt à vous photographier et la publier sous licence libre ici, il est évident qu'on utilisera la meilleure photo que l'on possède pour illustrer votre biographie sur Wikipédia (qui n'accepte que les photos sous licence libre). Okki (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. We do not usually allow notable people to control which images we keep. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
je n'ai pas donné mon autorisation pour que ce fichier soit publié. Merci 195.132.35.77 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Votre autorisation n'est pas requise. --Storkk (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
First, maintaining such a category tree is quite impossible, most black people are not black but brown, most white people not white but pink, etc. Second, only black people are categorized. Third, what is the use of such a category? We already have categories for ethnicity, etc. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Women with black skin -Danmichaelo (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. While i think that it should be deleted i feel that the community right now is moving towards categorisation for the sake of it. Look at the idea of the proposed filter for the offencive images. If a racist person wants to block oneself from seeing any people from black skin i suppose that category can be useful (i know it's idiotic, but so is the content filter on Commons). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, come on, that's too idiotic ;) Even the racist cannot «filter out» people with black skin on the streets, and so *he should not be able to do so here. A "racist content filter"? No, no, that won't happen. (And if it does, I quit Wikipedia). And then there's the problem of continuity in skin colours. Should we have a cutoff value, so people are considered «black» if their skin tone is brightness is less than, say 75 %? Will sunburned people be classified as red? And so on. It's not maintainable even if it fulfilled a purpose (which it doesn't). Danmichaelo (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the content filter is becoming a reality slowly. I agree with you though, people who don't want to see something should close themselves in their homes, turn off television, internet and everything else, and slowly starve to death. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, but still, there is a slight difference between not wanting to see nudity (yeah, I know about the difficulties in defining what's considered nudity and not, but say complete nudity then) and not wanting to see black skin :) It's possible to live well in most places of the world without actually seeing nude people if you want, thanks to the invention of clothing, but you have to live in a quite isolated community in order not to see black skin! Also, nude people are most likely not offended by people who don't want to see nude people, but black people are most likely offended by people who don't want to see black people. And so on… Danmichaelo (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually there are quite a few ethnically isolated communities; and the difference between discrimination against people due to their black skin colour and against nudists of course exists, and it is of course quite big (i am not a fool and i understand that), but i believe that my anology wasn't about the type of discrimination, but about the fact that it exists in principle and that MW caves in to it lately. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry, didn't mean to offend you, I think I get your point, but not why it should be weighted. Even if MW caves in for some kind of content filter, I find it quite hypothetical that it would make this category useful (is it really so that racists don't like to see black people? Lots of racists are fine having black people working for them, just not the other way around), and honestly I don't see why we should prepare a gift that might perhaps be useful for some racists some time in the future. Danmichaelo (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually there are quite a few ethnically isolated communities; and the difference between discrimination against people due to their black skin colour and against nudists of course exists, and it is of course quite big (i am not a fool and i understand that), but i believe that my anology wasn't about the type of discrimination, but about the fact that it exists in principle and that MW caves in to it lately. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, but still, there is a slight difference between not wanting to see nudity (yeah, I know about the difficulties in defining what's considered nudity and not, but say complete nudity then) and not wanting to see black skin :) It's possible to live well in most places of the world without actually seeing nude people if you want, thanks to the invention of clothing, but you have to live in a quite isolated community in order not to see black skin! Also, nude people are most likely not offended by people who don't want to see nude people, but black people are most likely offended by people who don't want to see black people. And so on… Danmichaelo (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the content filter is becoming a reality slowly. I agree with you though, people who don't want to see something should close themselves in their homes, turn off television, internet and everything else, and slowly starve to death. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, come on, that's too idiotic ;) Even the racist cannot «filter out» people with black skin on the streets, and so *he should not be able to do so here. A "racist content filter"? No, no, that won't happen. (And if it does, I quit Wikipedia). And then there's the problem of continuity in skin colours. Should we have a cutoff value, so people are considered «black» if their skin tone is brightness is less than, say 75 %? Will sunburned people be classified as red? And so on. It's not maintainable even if it fulfilled a purpose (which it doesn't). Danmichaelo (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I would consider this out of scope/pointless/subjective Werieth (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This is useful the other way -- illustrators and editors coming to Commons looking for a diversity of images will find the category useful. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kensico Cemetery
[edit]Per COM:FOP#United States. They are placed at en:Kensico Cemetery which opened after 1977 so the items were likely made after 1977.
- File:1 Billie Burke best 800.jpg
- File:Alfred Holland Smith Gravesite 2011.jpg
- File:Anne Bancroft Brooks Grave 300.jpg
- File:Anne Bancroft Brooks.jpg
- File:Ayer Statue 2011.JPG
- File:Beau Brummel Statue 2011C.jpg
- File:Danny Kaye best 800.jpg
File:Druid Cross Memorial of Judge John Fitch 2011.JPG- File:Fantastic Cross Monument 2011.JPG
- File:Henri Bendel Memorial 2010.JPG
- File:Kane Lodge Sphere 2011.JPG
- File:Kensico Elk Statue November 2011.JPG
- File:Kensico Statue 2011.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? Kensico Cemetery was founded in 1889, has (allegedly) been the largest cemetery (by area) in New York state since 1915, and is famous for its graves of entertainers: see Kensico's own history page. I'm assuming that the cemetery monuments do not have copyright messages and are not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and that pre-1978 art is therefore public domain. Here we go again:
- Keep File:1 Billie Burke best 800.jpg: Pre-1978 grave of Florenz Ziegfeld (1867–1932) and Billie Burke (1884–1970). Visibly old bronze statue, "dedicated to Blanche Beatty Burke by her daughter Billie".
- Keep File:Alfred Holland Smith Gravesite 2011.jpg: Pre-1978 and also arguably architecture (therefore freedom of panorama), as it appears to be a crypt. Grave of Alfred Holland Smith (1863–1924) and Maude Emery Smith LeBaron (1868–1949).
- Delete File:Anne Bancroft Brooks.jpg and File:Anne Bancroft Brooks Grave 300.jpg: No evidence monument was placed before death, so angel is presumably 2005 or later, so no copyright notice needed to attract copyright.
- Keep File:Ayer Statue 2011.JPG: Style, aging, and historical marker all imply a monument well before 1978.
- Delete File:Beau Brummel Statue 2011C.jpg: Presumably 1994 or later. Filename is wrong: This is Peter Andriy Zhurawetzky (1901–1994), who was some kind of Orthodox archbishop with suspicious consecrations under him.
- Delete File:Danny Kaye best 800.jpg: Presumably 1987 or later, as engraved in the artwork. This is the grave of Danny Kaye (1913–1987). Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US#1978 to March 1, 1989 implies that anything from March 1984 is copyrighted because the March 1989 no-formalities law kicked in before the 5-year registration lapse was up on the work. (Also, mere public display from 1978 on isn't "publication" in the U.S., so, unless the artist/copyright holder authorized photos or other derivatives of this work to actually be distributed to the public, it remains an as-yet-unpublished work.)
- Keep File:Druid Cross Memorial of Judge John Fitch 2011.JPG: "The memorial was unveiled on November 12, 1890, amid great ceremony."
- Weak Keep File:Fantastic Cross Monument 2011.JPG: I'm going to take a guess on this one. This is the Raymond family plot. In the lower left corner you see what I presume to be the first James Irving Raymond (1843–1905) and his wife Grace Clark Quincy Adams (1850–1919). To the right you see the other James Irving Raymond (1907–1988), an architect and the grandson of James and Grace. Considering the position of the monument in front of James and Grace, I am going to guess that it's from the early 20th century, not 1988. (Side note: Some sources give the younger Raymond's birth year as 1906, not 1907.)
- Keep File:Henri Bendel Memorial 2010.JPG: Pre-1978 grave of Henri Willis Bendel (1868–1936).
- Keep File:Kane Lodge Sphere 2011.JPG: Presumably pre-1978. Art Deco 1920s–1940 style work and lettering. Also, only 6 out of 43 at this link died in 1978 or later, so this has probably been around quite a while.
- Weak Keep File:Kensico Elk Statue November 2011.JPG: Presumably pre-1978; marks the area of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks New York Lodge Number One. I can't seem to find any hint on when the elk was placed, though, but it's probably been a while since an Elks lodge has cared enough to obtain its own section in a cemetery.
- Delete File:Kensico Statue 2011.JPG: No hint of dating.
- I wonder if closing administrators are going to pull their hair out from dealing with split-decision discussions that come from nominating images with dissimilar copyright years. ;-) --Closeapple (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Argh, sorry, I misread 1889 as 1989, thinking that any public artwork at that cemetery would be post-1978. Yes, your reasoning looks correct. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have deleted those so marked and kept the one (struck out above) that is pre 1923. The balance require more research -- if they are post 1963 and have notice, then they still have copyrights. I should add, for completeness, that if they are post 1923 and their copyrights were renewed, they also have copyrights, but that seems so unlikely that I would keep any in that class unless someone found a renewal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) Mar 24, 2012 10:18:56 UTC (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion -- kept some, some were already deleted by others. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)