Commons:Deletion requests/File:Primitive man.png
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.
I added an F10 tag to this out-of-scope man's image. The uploader removed the tag. (I wish to attract attention to this edit summary while removing the F10 tag.) They went to open a draft to prove that this file is "used". Do I have to accept now that the image of this OoS person was "useful"? If other colleagues find EDUSE in this file it may stay, I do not. So simple. Ah, BTW there are other suitable images for the said draft, there was no need to hurry that we could stay out of images to illustrate the topic... E4024 (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is textbook battle-grounding it has a clear use for articles like shirtless man, or on primitive lifestyle, or survivalism or like. Why not delete this image or this. Seriously what is so special to this image of a shirtless man that you find qualifies it for deletion? I also want to point that this user has put up the speedily delete tag after I reported him for POV nationalistic DR's. This text is incomprehensible. Des Vallee (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- In Turkish we say if you call someone mad 40 times he/she will get mad; but I will neither get mad nor become a POV editor, and less a vandal as many times as you call me names. Please stop that and speak "only" about files in DR. --E4024 (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Look, Des Vallee, I will be kind and patient with you, as all of us must be towards each other. (I learned my lessons from blocks in WP, FYI :) Have a look at the history of File:Sakarya 2004 -Ceylan Journey 025.jpg: This is also about a topless man. I DR'ed this image too (He is a Turk, BTW :) because the file was not in use, and did not have a good categorization and I thought it was an OoS person. Later I found out that he was a footballer with articles in several WPs and asked an admin to close the DR. Why am I making this talk? I see no need to defend my edits, but neither do I want anyone to have a wrong impression about me. Neither of these files were asked to delete because the men are topless, indeed because I thought they both were "scopeless". When I discovered the scope of the other gentleman, I withdrew my DR. If you show me this guy is a body builder or a porn actor or a banker whatsoever that is notable enough for Commons, I can also withdraw this DR. Not before. --E4024 (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- What on absolute earth are you talking about. This patent battle-grounding after I reported you. Please stop pinging me. None of the files I linked have any well known people, they are just pictures of toppless men, it's not a policy to only keep pictures of toppless men when you feel like it. Des Vallee (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging you? You filled my TP with stuff, and I am patiently not removing them, waiting for you to stop it and then I will remove them all at once. E4024 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- What on absolute earth are you talking about. This patent battle-grounding after I reported you. Please stop pinging me. None of the files I linked have any well known people, they are just pictures of toppless men, it's not a policy to only keep pictures of toppless men when you feel like it. Des Vallee (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Okay, this is getting really boring now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Tuválkin. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Missvain (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2021 (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.
The uploader never ordered a {{Flickrreview}} at upload for this image and its license was never verified to show if it was ever free. Now the flickr link is deleted and the Internet Wayback did not archive the flickrlink. Leoboudv (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Tuválkin and the first section above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: This is the Only Image on Commons from this now deleted flickr account. If images from this account was free, why are there not two or three images at least? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)- @Leoboudv: This image was 100% released under creative commons universal license. The image itself is from a video released under CC0 that I screenshotted, this image had numerous reviews by admins and the flickr file said it was CC0, if it wasn't it would have been deleted in the above deletion request, and the file history shows this. It's unfortunate that the image was deleted but the image was under CC0, and the numerous reviews this file underwent is proof of that. It's a fairly minor image but it was released under CC0. Des Vallee (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: per Des Vallee's comments. Perhaps someone could pass this image...please? Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Leoboudv: Please mark your withdrawl properly, with {{Withdraw}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Done per Tuválkin's suggestion. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Kept: nomination withdrawn. --Strakhov (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
