Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by JayShaw TT

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Files uploaded by JayShaw_TT (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Identified as non-sensical (w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental model).

—Ruud 20:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has original research been a deletion issue for Commons? This isn't Wikipedia ya know! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note the qualifier "non-sensical". Or do you think it's within Commons' mission of "making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content" (emphasis mine) to mislead people into believing that it's possible to construct a right-angled triangle with sides of e, π and φ?
—Ruud 22:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that wonderful display of gobbledy-gook changes what? Sometimes it's just as important to know what isn't correct, and knowing what pi is does not an education make. Education takes many different forms. As it happens none of those files make any sense to me at all, yet strangely I still know that "original research" isn't a deletion criteria for commons, who knew eh? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fred, while it greatly saddens me that the Pythagorean theorem hasn't been a part of your education, please don't focus on the "original research" part here (I've even removed this term from my rationale above). The important part here is that the images are non-sensical, ergo non-educational. —Ruud 00:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So put them in a "non-sensical" category. And yes I know Pythagorus, what I don't know is mathematical notation. I'm an illustrator, not a mathematician. What I do know is that knowing how not to do something is also educational. I see no harm in these images. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because "non-sensical" images not in the scope of Commons. These images do not even demonstrate how not to do something, they simply depict something which is untrue (i.e. that, according to one of the images, e2 + φ2 = π2). You may not be mathematically mature enough to even see what the image means, I am mathematically mature enough to immediately recognize it a nonsense, but imagine the large group of people that fall somewhere in between us. They will might be mislead into believing that equation does hold. In that sense the image is anti-educational, looking at it it might actually make you dumber. —Ruud 11:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, "not mathematically mature" eh? Talk about patronising? "They simply depict something which is untrue", so on that basis are we to delete any optical illusion imagery? You really don't give people much trust do you? Let me see now, images in a category called "non-sensical" yet you still believe that people who are 'mathematically between you and I' could believe it/them to be true? Do you really believe that people below your mathematical ability lack commonsense and reasoning ability? Is that patronising, arrogance or simply a language problem on your part? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optical illusions are real, so obviously no. Yes, again, I do believe people can be misled by these images, especially without the context of the article in which they originally appeared. These images have no educational value or possible use, as opposed to images of optical illusions. —Ruud 15:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, strangely you don't know that files not useful for education purposes or in use in Wikimedia projects aren't in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough I do, but that wasn't the original nomination rationale. Likewise "not in use in Wikimedia projects" is also not a legitimate rationale. I wonder how many images here aren't in use in any of the projects? I'm guessing quite a large percentage. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COM:SCOPE says that "A media file which is neither realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use as discussed above falls outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons." Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree, they are "fucking useless", but then again there are lots of fucking useless files around these here parts. If you'll notice I haven't actually !voted one way or the other, and I certainly haven't voted for a keep. But between you and I there's a wee bit of academic patronisation and arrogance going on around here, so in those situations I go into wind-up mode. incidentally, tell your Grandmother about Heinz's Salad Cream. it goes wonderfully with eggs. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because why would we care what someone educated in a subject thinks about the usefulness of images on the subject?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because regardless of education 1)It only takes so much education to know if it's right or wrong, anything beyond that is irrelevant. 2) having an extended education on a particular subject doesn't validate someone's subjective opinion, i.e. right or wrong is objective, knowing if something is useful is subjective. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no way in which these images could be reused by anyone but their author. Do you have concrete suggestions for their usage and, perhaps more importantly, for updated descriptions of the images (and could you please apply those those the images as well.) —Ruud 10:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be trying to offer opinion as fact now would you Ruud? "There is absolutely no way" seems a little black & white for which is only a subjective opinion after all, don't you think? I just cannot resist this bit, but here goes... do you have a citation or proof to back up that assertion? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think File:Vesica piscis square roots.png could be kept. But is there any other file which is correct and could be kept? I "corrected" the [[:File:E - PHI - PI Vesica piscis.png]. I think its useless now, isn't it? --McZusatz (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not fool. 1.6²+2.7²≈3.14² was already true and I'm going to create some "φeπ" triangles to show, how similar to a right triangle they are. BartekChom (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done. Category:Φ e π triangle. BartekChom (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_JayShaw_TT&oldid=72812203"