Delete per nom. If someone wants to illustrate using two monitors at once they would much more likely upload their own version and be unaware of this one. —
jammycakes(t)(c)18:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Vanity image, doesn't appropriately illustrate the subject either. The account was only created to upload and promote this video, if they had some other contribs it's legality and vanity wouldn't be so questionable. As it is, we can't even be sure they made it. --Lucid09:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Mainly, trustworthiness, secondly solid source info. This picture has neither. That's only one of many reasons this image is inappropriate, though.--Lucid04:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Because the word owned on wiki should not only be for owned on one person to another, it should have all types including Self ownage in which my image clearly shows. and yes it is my image:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42-32erssho
Wikipedia is not a place to
promote Youtube video(s). Wikipedia is not for
personal file storage. More importantly, Wikipedia is not a
slang usage guide. The articles for
decapitation or
execution methods do not require animated GIFs to illustrate the topics, and the article for the recent slang meaning of the word "
owned" does not require an animated GIF either. The GIF is just a violent video with a word at the end. The image is unencyclopedic. It shows your personal
opinion of how you think the word should be used. To claim the image is an example of someone being "owned" is
original research. --
Pixelface04:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per Pixelface. The picture shows someone doing something on the ground, it exploding closely to them and then everything being enveloped in smoke; the word 'owned' at the end is pure interpretation, since even if we agree with the rather nebulous definition supplied on that page, without any knowledge of what happened to the victim it's impossible to tell whether the description is accurate. And even if it is correct, it's still in poor taste, since the caption 'owned' is supposed to be some kind of joke but, for the caption to be accurate, the substance of it would be a fairly serious and harmful accident. Some people might find that kind of thing funny, but I hardly think it's appropriate for Wikipedia.
Lordrosemount16:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Author-requested deletion of file because of inability upload viewable SVG image after 3x unsuccessful upload attempts →Lwalt ♦
talk07:40, 12 August 2007 (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 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 image is being used in the bicolor cat article and should not be deleted as it displays the mask and mantle pattern.
This image appears in the article
Lisunov Li-2 with the caption "Lisunov Li-2 NOTE: the Wikipedia doesn't permit Soviet-era images due to nervousness about Russian copyright. Therefore we are using this public domain image. Links to Li-2 images are found in the main text to the left. If you have a good image of an Li-2, please upload!" I can understand the uploader is upset that the image he uploaded on Commons got deleted due to insufficient copyright status, and I can understand free content is usually preferable, even if it means somewhat of a loss in quality, but this childish drawing does not belong in the encyclopedia. -
Nard14:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks - my original image was PD also, but it was deleted without discussion. This original sketch is all I could come up with when faced with an aggressive deleter. I would prefer that the deleter would undelete the original non-copyrighted, PD, free-to-use image. Otherwise we're going to be bogged down in this pointless debate for months. The only photographs available of the original Li-2's are soviet PD images. The sticky point seems to be the confusion over the licence since there was no copyright in the soviet union. The following description usually accompanies:
"This file is in the public domain in Russia. It was published before January 1st, 1954. Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia." or words to that effect.
The deleter refused to help locate the licencing information, stating the tags (PD:RUSSIA) are wrong and the licencing was wrong (there's no soviet PD licence in the drop list. Any help is appreciated since I've got lots more submissions to make and I hope I don't have to go through this comedy every time.
Hoserjoe03:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, possibly unencyclopedic. This is a cc-by-sa-2.0 photo uploaded from Flickr to illustrate the
Eminem article (
source image). However, doubts have been raised whether this photo depicts Eminem.
[1] See
this photo, uploaded by the same Flickr user, which appears to depict the same subject (note the identical background) and is clearly not Eminem. --
Muchness16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Nuke it. I found it quickly while searching for a different free image and didn't even look at it closely. east.718at 17:03, August 12, 2007
Image taken from BBC website; no permission given, easily replicatable (and indeed replicated) image, flagged incorrectly as PD-user.
Laïka20:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete I had forgotten that this one was still around. The other copy is orders of magnitude better. Agree with OsamaK.
Dsmdgold13:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)reply