The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Keep for now. If we deleted every personal image by active editors, we'd have a revolt. If this stays orphaned and becomes stale in a year or so, come on back. —
Wknight94 (
talk) 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Useless, orphaned, will never be used in an article. Wikipedia is not a webhost for kids who got a camera for their birthday.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk) 05:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Did you ask the uploader about their intentions for this image?
Simultaneous movement (
talk) 21:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
And is that a good image for that article? No. It is a low-quality image with improper color balance, it is not in a dishwasher, and has barrel distortion.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
And,
removed from that article by a third party. Which removes the entire keep rationale above.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
Keep. Public domain image apparently is being used on the user page of an active Wikipedian. See no logical reason for deletion at this time.
Crypticfirefly (
talk) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: keep -
Papa November (
talk) 09:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The painting is not discussed or even mentioned in the article in question, nor is it used to illustrate the artist's work in a section on the artist's work- it is simply used to decorate the section on the artist's life.
J Milburn (
talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Please see my edit summary, and also I have created a new section on Lyman's work that I will reference tonight. I would be greatly obliged if you would postpone a decision on deletion until then. I am already late to class, or I would ref it now.
Lithoderm (
talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep It is now
discussed specifically in the article. Nom objections met. Nom withdrawn? Ty 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep the image is plainly discussed now, and enhances the understanding of the artist. Advise given - and apparently advise taken.
Modernist (
talk) 12:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Question May I at least restore the image caption while we reach a consensus?
This image is up for deletion, but the its use in
Natalee Holloway#Disappearance still shows its original caption...
Lithoderm (
talk) 06:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete but now Commons shine-through. —
Wknight94 (
talk) 17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
No source for the numbers used to paint this map. No information about the criteria used.
Damiens.rf 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree, and endorse the move for deletion. Just by a quick glance, the fact that Spain and Russia are colored as "black", thus denoting 20 or more "terrorist" attacks in the past eight years, leads me to believe anything involving the ETA or Catalan separatists in Spain is falling under that label, as well as any action perpetrated by rebel forces in Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan in disputed territories in the Caucasus region of Russia. The military status of these groups is definitely arguable, as is the nature of their operations.
BostonFenian (
talk) 20:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Just in response to the previous comment on "terrorist" acts, terrorism is a set of attacks or threats that cause large scale death, injury, or fear, in an attempt to coerce or convince a government or governing body to make a decision or act in a specific way, regardless of the specific intentions. --
Delta1989 (
talk) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not only is this unsourced, it seems like it will by its very nature report large countries as very dangerous - it doesn't adjust for size or population at all.
HappyArtichoke (
talk) 02:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This map reflects informational imprint of 'terror' on the society, whatever this 'terror' means. It is based on
Wikipedia lists, which reflect the public opinion on these matter. It will be further hosted on
Knol.Emilfaro (
talk) 22:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, appears to be a copyright video game image which can not be licensed as GFDL-self
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 23:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned images, original uploader absent, were only used on
MFD'ed user subpages, several are tagged as PD-old, but no source is provided.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Keep for now. If we deleted every personal image by active editors, we'd have a revolt. If this stays orphaned and becomes stale in a year or so, come on back. —
Wknight94 (
talk) 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Useless, orphaned, will never be used in an article. Wikipedia is not a webhost for kids who got a camera for their birthday.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk) 05:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Did you ask the uploader about their intentions for this image?
Simultaneous movement (
talk) 21:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
And is that a good image for that article? No. It is a low-quality image with improper color balance, it is not in a dishwasher, and has barrel distortion.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
And,
removed from that article by a third party. Which removes the entire keep rationale above.
SchmuckyTheCat (
talk)
Keep. Public domain image apparently is being used on the user page of an active Wikipedian. See no logical reason for deletion at this time.
Crypticfirefly (
talk) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: keep -
Papa November (
talk) 09:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The painting is not discussed or even mentioned in the article in question, nor is it used to illustrate the artist's work in a section on the artist's work- it is simply used to decorate the section on the artist's life.
J Milburn (
talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Please see my edit summary, and also I have created a new section on Lyman's work that I will reference tonight. I would be greatly obliged if you would postpone a decision on deletion until then. I am already late to class, or I would ref it now.
Lithoderm (
talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep It is now
discussed specifically in the article. Nom objections met. Nom withdrawn? Ty 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep the image is plainly discussed now, and enhances the understanding of the artist. Advise given - and apparently advise taken.
Modernist (
talk) 12:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Question May I at least restore the image caption while we reach a consensus?
This image is up for deletion, but the its use in
Natalee Holloway#Disappearance still shows its original caption...
Lithoderm (
talk) 06:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete but now Commons shine-through. —
Wknight94 (
talk) 17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
No source for the numbers used to paint this map. No information about the criteria used.
Damiens.rf 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree, and endorse the move for deletion. Just by a quick glance, the fact that Spain and Russia are colored as "black", thus denoting 20 or more "terrorist" attacks in the past eight years, leads me to believe anything involving the ETA or Catalan separatists in Spain is falling under that label, as well as any action perpetrated by rebel forces in Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan in disputed territories in the Caucasus region of Russia. The military status of these groups is definitely arguable, as is the nature of their operations.
BostonFenian (
talk) 20:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Just in response to the previous comment on "terrorist" acts, terrorism is a set of attacks or threats that cause large scale death, injury, or fear, in an attempt to coerce or convince a government or governing body to make a decision or act in a specific way, regardless of the specific intentions. --
Delta1989 (
talk) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not only is this unsourced, it seems like it will by its very nature report large countries as very dangerous - it doesn't adjust for size or population at all.
HappyArtichoke (
talk) 02:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This map reflects informational imprint of 'terror' on the society, whatever this 'terror' means. It is based on
Wikipedia lists, which reflect the public opinion on these matter. It will be further hosted on
Knol.Emilfaro (
talk) 22:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, appears to be a copyright video game image which can not be licensed as GFDL-self
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 23:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned images, original uploader absent, were only used on
MFD'ed user subpages, several are tagged as PD-old, but no source is provided.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply