It's not an accurate image, plain and simple. See
this screencap, where the image differs wildly from the SVG (the circle's thinner and brighter than it should be, and the text isn't even close). —
Ral315»03:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I deleted it. I have no objection to it being deleted, and it has been on votes for deletion for more than 5 days. —
Noldoaran05:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete please. I do not want my picture on Wikipedia. I originally uploaded it for some page on Wikipedia for pictures of members, and I only recently updated it because I don't want a picture of myself from three years ago up. So please delete it. --
Lyght06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It might be of use in the future. Why are images being proposed for deletion just because they aren't currently used?
zoney ♣talk21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This image of a newspaper article is not actually used in the Wikipedia article, but is instead serving as a reference. While helpful, it cannot be kept under the
WP:NFCC. howcheng {
chat}18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, original summary only says used by permission, somehow asumed to be licensed under GFDL but nothing to back this up.
Sherool(talk)19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
unfree screenshot doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text (other than being used to illustrate a living person). Abu badali(
talk)19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It was publiced at a convention's program cover, wich would make it for debate if it really fits the rationale of being published before (we are not talking about a magazine or a comic book as the tag pretends, but about a "gift" given at a convention and almost impossible to ever get otherwise). Besides, it serves just a decorative use at the
Teen Titans (TV series), as it despicts a situation that in the shows themselves never actually took place —
Perón21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
As the originator and subject of the picture, I've no problem with its removal. I probably shouldn't have uploaded it in the first place, but it was over two years ago and I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocol at the time. –
Sean Daugherty(talk)01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploading a personal photo for your userpage is perfectly ok, but such images are routinely nominated for deletion when no longer used since the rest of the project have little use for them and Wikipedia is not image repository. Since you have no objections I'll just delete this one early then. --
Sherool(talk)06:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, tagged as PD, but only source info is a dead link to a website that does not given any explanation as to why this would be public domain.
Sherool(talk)22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Claims ownership with no indication of being the actual producer of the image. Age of image is also suspect if the uploader was the photographer/owner. Therefore a copyright violation —
Tainter22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC).reply
It's not an accurate image, plain and simple. See
this screencap, where the image differs wildly from the SVG (the circle's thinner and brighter than it should be, and the text isn't even close). —
Ral315»03:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I deleted it. I have no objection to it being deleted, and it has been on votes for deletion for more than 5 days. —
Noldoaran05:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete please. I do not want my picture on Wikipedia. I originally uploaded it for some page on Wikipedia for pictures of members, and I only recently updated it because I don't want a picture of myself from three years ago up. So please delete it. --
Lyght06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It might be of use in the future. Why are images being proposed for deletion just because they aren't currently used?
zoney ♣talk21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This image of a newspaper article is not actually used in the Wikipedia article, but is instead serving as a reference. While helpful, it cannot be kept under the
WP:NFCC. howcheng {
chat}18:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, original summary only says used by permission, somehow asumed to be licensed under GFDL but nothing to back this up.
Sherool(talk)19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
unfree screenshot doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text (other than being used to illustrate a living person). Abu badali(
talk)19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It was publiced at a convention's program cover, wich would make it for debate if it really fits the rationale of being published before (we are not talking about a magazine or a comic book as the tag pretends, but about a "gift" given at a convention and almost impossible to ever get otherwise). Besides, it serves just a decorative use at the
Teen Titans (TV series), as it despicts a situation that in the shows themselves never actually took place —
Perón21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
As the originator and subject of the picture, I've no problem with its removal. I probably shouldn't have uploaded it in the first place, but it was over two years ago and I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocol at the time. –
Sean Daugherty(talk)01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploading a personal photo for your userpage is perfectly ok, but such images are routinely nominated for deletion when no longer used since the rest of the project have little use for them and Wikipedia is not image repository. Since you have no objections I'll just delete this one early then. --
Sherool(talk)06:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not used, tagged as PD, but only source info is a dead link to a website that does not given any explanation as to why this would be public domain.
Sherool(talk)22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Claims ownership with no indication of being the actual producer of the image. Age of image is also suspect if the uploader was the photographer/owner. Therefore a copyright violation —
Tainter22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC).reply