Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nitrocellulose 02.ogv
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Low quality, exposes the author to legal consequences AleksSobolewski (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - widely used. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by Alekssobolewski as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Low quality, exposes the author to legal consequences
Converted to regular DR due to previous DR and the image being in use. Image-author could be anonymized to protect uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please anonymize this upload (and clean this discussion) or remove it entirely. The file is indeed in use, but only in three articles. It is of low quality and compromises the author, so please don't argue and respect my position on this matter. AleksSobolewski (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would vote for a speedy keep per COM:INUSE. I didn't realize the author's name could be anonymized. Sure, by all means. But what legal consequences? Is there any copyright issue? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's not legal to make and play with nitrocellulose, for God's sake. Why can't you all respect my decision? AleksSobolewski (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because of COM:INUSE. Besides, you aren't telling people to play with nitrocellulose. Finally, you should have thought about these things before you irrevocably gave the file a Creative Commons license. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, whatever. You will do whatever you want because of your administrative privileges, right? I've tried to explain my position, but no one seems to care. Next time, I will think a hundred times before uploading something. For several years, I posted carefully crafted photos to illustrate many articles. Still, it clearly did not give me respect in the community or standing to defend myself on this matter. I am sincerely sorry about this, and I am disappointed with the attitude you represent. Because of the attitude of people like you, the entire Wikipedia suffers. AleksSobolewski (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I have no administrative privileges! Read the policies! And this is not Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Because of COM:INUSE. Besides, you aren't telling people to play with nitrocellulose. Finally, you should have thought about these things before you irrevocably gave the file a Creative Commons license. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Keep as per previous decision --Zenwort (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)