Image now part of
Buddhism in Thailand. The lying buddha style is very special and known only in a few countries like Thailand. I vote to keep the image. --
Michael Janich 06:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Withdraw nomination -
Nv8200ptalk 13:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Fibonacci (
notify). Uploaded by mistake to Wikipedia. Its intended destination was Commons, where a copy exists now with the same name. --
Fibonacci 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
See also
Image:Ccbs.png, a derivative, though this is clearly not PD. --
Rory096 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep No reason given for deletion.Naconkantari 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Abstain. I like it, but if it should be deleted, then delete it :( .
Naconkantari 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
DELETE The image is not used in articles, and it's a magnet for vandalism (daily dozen of aol ips vandalize with this image). Certainly the funiness of some userpages can take a shot for the wiki (I was just going to ifd this, someone else did it faster, so consider my statement as a nom reason) --
Drini 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It is sourced and is released as PD and normally only used on User pages. Not convinced deleting image will reduce any vandalism. They will find another image. -
Nv8200ptalk 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah. However the image was uplaoded in march, but there are examples
[1] dating february, so chances aren't the uploader is not actually the owner of copyright.
Delete, uploading user doesn't seem to be very honest. --
Conti|
✉ 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete and consider blocking uploader. I strongly doubt that the uploader took the picture, given that it was circulating on the Internet for some time before showing up on Wikipedia. For example,
http://ceilingcat.com has been around since not later than February 9, 2006; that domain name was registered February 10, 2006. Furthermore, ceilingcat.com is registered to a person in New York City, and
checkuser evidence strongly suggests that the uploader is not in or near New York. Finally, no meaningful encyclopedic purpose, and the image lacks a stated source.
Kelly Martin (
talk) 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm restating my nomination to be more precise. This is an image, that while possibly PD adds nothing to the encyclopedia, but instead is damaging by encouraging vandalism. I'm listing the ones I catched only today at Image talk:Ceiling cat 00.jpg, and today wan't a special day, that's every day. And I only catch a minor fraction of the vandalism. Since
Wikipedia is not a free webhost we have no obligation to host an image that is damaging the encyclopedia and currently has no use. Moreover, the uploader did it to create a vandalism page, which I've restored temporarily and can be seen here:
[2] We should not reward that kind of behaviour, but stop it instead.--
Drini 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, but it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion so I've reuploaded it. It isn't absolutely imperative to delete it immediately; it can hang on for six more days pending the conclusion of this IfD. —
BorgHunter (
talk) 02:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: you could have simply undeleted it instead of reuploading. --
cesarb 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete Humorous, but... has no place on here. --
Pilot|guy 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - Cute, but this is not the place. Also, uncertain copyright status. --
Improv 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Images commonly used on userpages are almost unencyclopedic by definition, but encyclopedic should only be relevant for images in the main namespace. We also don't delete things for being vandal magnets or we should be deleting the entire site right now. I think the reason we should delete it is copyright concerns and nothing else. -
Mgm|
(talk) 10:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete unencyclopedic, unnecessary, encourages vandalism.
Matthew Brown (Morven) (
T:
C) 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete as per morven --
Shuki 20:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. More vandalisms are going on right now and the problem outweighs the amusement (although I know plenty of other images could serve as targets). --
Omicronpersei8 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete no current legit uses and for all intensive purposes a pure vandalism image. Ceiling cat may watch me but I'm watching ceiling cat get hit with a giant deletion hammer.
Pegasus1138Talk |
Contribs |
Email ---- 04:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
STRONG Delete nothing but vandalism. Someone mentioned that user page use is unencyclopidic so we should keep it...I seem to remember something in Wiki about a user page not being a personal blog. I'm TIRED of fixing pages that are using this cat.
KsprayDad 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It is something of an internet phenomenon and deserves to be linked to the
Ceiling Cat page.
130.102.0.178 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The Ceiling Cat article is only temporarily undeleted for Drini's mysterious purposes, and shall not stay. —
BorgHunter (
talk) 06:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The mysterious purpose iis to let
this link to be available (which was created the same day b~y the uploader in order to prove that he was not a good faith and serious wikipedia contributor. --
Drini 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete unless we've given up and decided Wikipedia is really just a toy for trolls. -
GTBacchus(
talk) 07:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - This kind of garbage is fine for myspace, not Wikipedia. --
cholmes75 (
chit chat) 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete not encyclopedic, not even evidence of meme notability --
Comment: Well, it's somewhat notable. It's been posted to
4chan 61 times in the last two months, and Macrochan
has 24 edits of it. Non-notable memes don't get parodied that much (or reposted that often) (It also has
a site) --
Travis Wells 12:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete This has been used to vandalise Wikipedia and therefore attempt to harm the Wiki.
Aeon 05:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sole purpose of the image is vandalism.
Sjakkalle(Check!) 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete Used only for vandalism, made worse by fact that it's mostly AOL user vandalism.
NawlinWiki 13:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Kill it. Copyvio. The vandalism is nothing, it's the being a total copyright violation that makes it delete-worthy. --
Rory096 14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete I can't believe there are people who think this crap should stay.
Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Really - this has no purpose, and is just a troll target (not saying all uses are trollish of course).
Ian¹³/t 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. The image is now in the appropriate article. It is a verifiable meme along the lines of
ORLY?. Its license would be "abandoned" under US law, because it was published without an attempt to secure the copyright.--
M@rēino 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Update: Here is the
Wikipedian who claims to be the author. That should confirm that it is, indeed, an abandoned copyright. --
M@rēino 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete quickly and protect from re-creation. Non encyclopedic nonsense.
freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Image now part of
Buddhism in Thailand. The lying buddha style is very special and known only in a few countries like Thailand. I vote to keep the image. --
Michael Janich 06:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Withdraw nomination -
Nv8200ptalk 13:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Uploaded by Fibonacci (
notify). Uploaded by mistake to Wikipedia. Its intended destination was Commons, where a copy exists now with the same name. --
Fibonacci 09:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
See also
Image:Ccbs.png, a derivative, though this is clearly not PD. --
Rory096 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep No reason given for deletion.Naconkantari 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Abstain. I like it, but if it should be deleted, then delete it :( .
Naconkantari 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
DELETE The image is not used in articles, and it's a magnet for vandalism (daily dozen of aol ips vandalize with this image). Certainly the funiness of some userpages can take a shot for the wiki (I was just going to ifd this, someone else did it faster, so consider my statement as a nom reason) --
Drini 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It is sourced and is released as PD and normally only used on User pages. Not convinced deleting image will reduce any vandalism. They will find another image. -
Nv8200ptalk 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Yeah. However the image was uplaoded in march, but there are examples
[1] dating february, so chances aren't the uploader is not actually the owner of copyright.
Delete, uploading user doesn't seem to be very honest. --
Conti|
✉ 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete and consider blocking uploader. I strongly doubt that the uploader took the picture, given that it was circulating on the Internet for some time before showing up on Wikipedia. For example,
http://ceilingcat.com has been around since not later than February 9, 2006; that domain name was registered February 10, 2006. Furthermore, ceilingcat.com is registered to a person in New York City, and
checkuser evidence strongly suggests that the uploader is not in or near New York. Finally, no meaningful encyclopedic purpose, and the image lacks a stated source.
Kelly Martin (
talk) 23:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm restating my nomination to be more precise. This is an image, that while possibly PD adds nothing to the encyclopedia, but instead is damaging by encouraging vandalism. I'm listing the ones I catched only today at Image talk:Ceiling cat 00.jpg, and today wan't a special day, that's every day. And I only catch a minor fraction of the vandalism. Since
Wikipedia is not a free webhost we have no obligation to host an image that is damaging the encyclopedia and currently has no use. Moreover, the uploader did it to create a vandalism page, which I've restored temporarily and can be seen here:
[2] We should not reward that kind of behaviour, but stop it instead.--
Drini 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, but it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion so I've reuploaded it. It isn't absolutely imperative to delete it immediately; it can hang on for six more days pending the conclusion of this IfD. —
BorgHunter (
talk) 02:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: you could have simply undeleted it instead of reuploading. --
cesarb 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete Humorous, but... has no place on here. --
Pilot|guy 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - Cute, but this is not the place. Also, uncertain copyright status. --
Improv 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Images commonly used on userpages are almost unencyclopedic by definition, but encyclopedic should only be relevant for images in the main namespace. We also don't delete things for being vandal magnets or we should be deleting the entire site right now. I think the reason we should delete it is copyright concerns and nothing else. -
Mgm|
(talk) 10:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete unencyclopedic, unnecessary, encourages vandalism.
Matthew Brown (Morven) (
T:
C) 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete as per morven --
Shuki 20:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. More vandalisms are going on right now and the problem outweighs the amusement (although I know plenty of other images could serve as targets). --
Omicronpersei8 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete no current legit uses and for all intensive purposes a pure vandalism image. Ceiling cat may watch me but I'm watching ceiling cat get hit with a giant deletion hammer.
Pegasus1138Talk |
Contribs |
Email ---- 04:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
STRONG Delete nothing but vandalism. Someone mentioned that user page use is unencyclopidic so we should keep it...I seem to remember something in Wiki about a user page not being a personal blog. I'm TIRED of fixing pages that are using this cat.
KsprayDad 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep It is something of an internet phenomenon and deserves to be linked to the
Ceiling Cat page.
130.102.0.178 03:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The Ceiling Cat article is only temporarily undeleted for Drini's mysterious purposes, and shall not stay. —
BorgHunter (
talk) 06:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The mysterious purpose iis to let
this link to be available (which was created the same day b~y the uploader in order to prove that he was not a good faith and serious wikipedia contributor. --
Drini 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete unless we've given up and decided Wikipedia is really just a toy for trolls. -
GTBacchus(
talk) 07:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - This kind of garbage is fine for myspace, not Wikipedia. --
cholmes75 (
chit chat) 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete not encyclopedic, not even evidence of meme notability --
Comment: Well, it's somewhat notable. It's been posted to
4chan 61 times in the last two months, and Macrochan
has 24 edits of it. Non-notable memes don't get parodied that much (or reposted that often) (It also has
a site) --
Travis Wells 12:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete This has been used to vandalise Wikipedia and therefore attempt to harm the Wiki.
Aeon 05:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Sole purpose of the image is vandalism.
Sjakkalle(Check!) 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete Used only for vandalism, made worse by fact that it's mostly AOL user vandalism.
NawlinWiki 13:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Kill it. Copyvio. The vandalism is nothing, it's the being a total copyright violation that makes it delete-worthy. --
Rory096 14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete I can't believe there are people who think this crap should stay.
Danny Lilithborne 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Really - this has no purpose, and is just a troll target (not saying all uses are trollish of course).
Ian¹³/t 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. The image is now in the appropriate article. It is a verifiable meme along the lines of
ORLY?. Its license would be "abandoned" under US law, because it was published without an attempt to secure the copyright.--
M@rēino 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Update: Here is the
Wikipedian who claims to be the author. That should confirm that it is, indeed, an abandoned copyright. --
M@rēino 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete quickly and protect from re-creation. Non encyclopedic nonsense.
freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply