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.
Keep The user page is an excellent example of the humour that is so sadly lacking here, and the image is an integral part of it. Satire may not be welcome in articles but it is more than welcome on user pages. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination seemingly based on anti-Scrotum prejudice. If you object to the userpage MFD the whole thing, not attempt to dismantle it piece by piece. One Night In Hackney303 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a frivolous nomination. Jokes on user pages are in the grey area of acceptability per WP:USER, but clutter in the image namespace to support user page silliness isn't appropriate. The same argument applies to template namespace clutter, which is why we userfy certain templates, for example. That option isn't available for images, however. Note that if I wanted to nominate the whole user page, I would have done so. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beautiful pic, Gentlemen!. I agree with Rodhullandemu, user pages should be safe heavens for satire and humour. DagosNavy 02:42, March 14 2008 (UTC)
Keep and lighten up. Surely there are better ways to spend your time than complaining about a harmless user page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh for pity's sake. Risker (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all five images "Clutter up the namespace" indeed! Were you planning on uploading another image with the same name? If not, how does this clutter anything up? Are image names a scarce resource? Or is a namespace something that people look at, and like to see clean and sparse? -- Zsero (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above nothing wrong with humour and satire on a user page. BigDunc (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of the vast amount of local imagecruft we have on enwiki, this has to be the mildest of them all. These pointless IfDs here impinge more on the project, IMO - Alison❤ 00:13, 15 March 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.
Keep The user page is an excellent example of the humour that is so sadly lacking here, and the image is an integral part of it. Satire may not be welcome in articles but it is more than welcome on user pages. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination seemingly based on anti-Scrotum prejudice. If you object to the userpage MFD the whole thing, not attempt to dismantle it piece by piece. One Night In Hackney303 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and lighten up. Surely there are better ways to spend your time than complaining about a harmless user page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relax. There are thousands and thousands of images that are uploaded and only used on userpages. At least this one is funny and doesn't include other living people who might well be shocked to find out they're on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As my comments above. BigDunc (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment above - Alison❤ 00:13, 15 March 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.
Keep The user page is an excellent example of the humour that is so sadly lacking here, and the image is an integral part of it. Satire may not be welcome in articles but it is more than welcome on user pages. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination seemingly based on anti-Scrotum prejudice. If you object to the userpage MFD the whole thing, not attempt to dismantle it piece by piece. One Night In Hackney303 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and lighten up. Surely there are better ways to spend your time than complaining about a harmless user page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relax. There are thousands and thousands of images that are uploaded and only used on userpages. At least this one is funny and doesn't include other living people who might well be shocked to find out they're on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As my comments above. BigDunc (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment above - Alison❤ 00:13, 15 March 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.
Keep The user page is an excellent example of the humour that is so sadly lacking here, and the image is an integral part of it. Satire may not be welcome in articles but it is more than welcome on user pages. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination seemingly based on anti-Scrotum prejudice. If you object to the userpage MFD the whole thing, not attempt to dismantle it piece by piece. One Night In Hackney303 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and lighten up. Surely there are better ways to spend your time than complaining about a harmless user page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relax. There are thousands and thousands of images that are uploaded and only used on userpages. At least this one is funny and doesn't include other living people who might well be shocked to find out they're on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As my comments above. BigDunc (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment above - Alison❤ 00:13, 15 March 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.
Keep The user page is an excellent example of the humour that is so sadly lacking here, and the image is an integral part of it. Satire may not be welcome in articles but it is more than welcome on user pages. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frivolous nomination seemingly based on anti-Scrotum prejudice. If you object to the userpage MFD the whole thing, not attempt to dismantle it piece by piece. One Night In Hackney303 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and lighten up. Surely there are better ways to spend your time than complaining about a harmless user page. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and relax. There are thousands and thousands of images that are uploaded and only used on userpages. At least this one is funny and doesn't include other living people who might well be shocked to find out they're on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As my comments above. BigDunc (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment above - Alison❤ 00:13, 15 March 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.
Orphan image; removed from two articles as apparently misleading -- certainly not a clothoid, but does not appear to be an example of a clothoid loop, either. Shows polar coordinates, but does not have a specified formula. Of dubious encyclopedic relevance without an explanation as to exactly what this depicts. The Anome (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
looks like a professional photograph but at low resolution, uploader has other copyright problems, assertion of permission is vague Mangostar (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the picture is from here. The website doesn't say whether the content is copyrighted or free. – jaksmata 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused. This image might actually be useful somewhere, but I have so little context that I'm not sure where. Maybe surveillance? If someone can find an appropriate category on the Commons, it can be moved there. —Bkell (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a good example of a modern ghillie suit, and I have included the image in the article of that name. Risker (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive, unencyclopedic, political propaganda image Fut.Perf.☼ 10:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Delete - doesn't appear to be encyclopedic and is, as noted above, offensive. Perhaps a political propaganda image, perhaps just an expression of emotion, either way it holds no place here. Rudget. 11:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is none of those things. It is an image created by ShieldDane for use on my user page. People's user pages are full of "unencyclopedic" images expressing their opinions. Is it any less encyclopedic than this image Image:Icanbitenewcmrs.jpg on Fut.Perf.'s user page? TharkunColl (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really compare a cat to that image. Rudget. 11:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is divisive and inflammatory. -- lucasbfrtalk 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link I have used as part of a debate on the Muhammad talk page itself. It is a legitimate subject for discussion. TharkunColl (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever you put up on your own website is completely up to you, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that millions of people access each day, if someone was to see that image and become offended, they could cause the project to experience serious distruption. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't help build a neutral encyclopedia. Addhoc (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, someone appears to have deleted the image after just an hour or two of discussion. TharkunColl (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Low-quality, unencyclopedic user-created drawing Fut.Perf.☼ 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this picture is low enough quality that it seems to bend the exception to OR mentioned at WP:OR#Original images. – jaksmata 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only picture of Egil One-Hand there is. Plus it's free. Do you want me to color it? ShieldDane (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also it shows his unique physical feature for which he is named for, which is helpful to the folks at home. ShieldDane (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a picture drawn by a famous artist, or a picture displayed in a notable location, it would be different. This looks more like something drawn in a few minutes during school. It lacks composition (the feet are missing - is that how he looked?) and it is disproportional (the eyes are the same width as the shins). I'm sorry to sound harsh, but it does not look professional. – jaksmata 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, I'm not very good at drawing feet? As for proportions in art..Well I can head over to cubism and show you worse? I understand your reasoning, but he has a sword for an arm, and I feel it adds to the article that are you are able visually recognize that right off the bat. ShieldDane (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article you posted..and "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles.", seems to fit my picture, as it does illustrate a point about the article. Am I allowed to vote? ShieldDane (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly allowed to vote. My opinion shouldn't count more than anyone else's, and it's only an opinion. If consensus is to keep it, so be it. Good luck to you. – jaksmata 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly accurate and artistic representation of the subject of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete. It's what the artist says it is, is used to illustrate what must be a notable subject, and does not seem to be a violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I'd update the image's summary text to be more NPOV but am not sure what the Wikipedia rules are. Do you credit the artist by name or is it an anonymous "user submission" (I know the uploader's wiki account is visible). ShieldDane, a black and white line drawing is fine unless the character's colors are an important part of the story line. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image is already on Wikipedia and can be used to illustrate articles about Egil. Also, it seems that there are no precise descriptions of where Egil's arm was cut, how the sword was mounted, nor how he looked meaning the drawing could be considered "original research" given it's the artist's interpretation of how Egil may have looked. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a poor quality drawing, and has no inherent encyclopaedic value. It is unnecessary to illustrate the article with somebody's guess as to what this legendary character might have looked like. A "[p]erfectly accurate" representation? I think not. BencherliteTalk 22:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the Sword-Arm, an accurate representation of the Sword-Arm. ShieldDane (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a better alternative is presented. --Vigilant Darkness (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked this account as an obvious sock- or meatpuppet. Fut.Perf.☼ 06:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you REALLY sure Fut perfect? All I've seen from you is the creation of ton of situations where you've had innocent people blocked. I've proved I'm not a puppet, neither sock nor meat, even though I had to take a block i didn't deserve for it. And I don't think you even gave Viligent darkness a chance. ShieldDane (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Vigilant Darkness was still a meatpuppet, even if they were not a sock. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure it was established he was not. ShieldDane (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fut.Perf. and Bencherlite. Image is unused. ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unused, Future perfect keeps removing it from the page it is on. I get the feeling they decided since it looked like things were heading south here, that they'll just delete it from the page. ShieldDane (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a poor quality, childish scribble with no merit. And we don't need images of fictional entities anyway. There's no use showing what a fictional character looked like. A fictional character has no looks at all, unless art history has endowed him with some, through a tradition of notable pictures. This image adds no encyclopedic information at all, apart from matching some adolescent boy's stereotyped conception of a generic fierce warrior, plus a some indistinct scribble where the right arm should be. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low quality sketch of no encyclopedic value. The article would be better off without an image if this is the best the community can do. Aramgar (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, how long does this vote go for? Until Future Perfect gets enough to delete it? ShieldDane (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally five days, and the final judgment will be made by an administrator other than me. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appreciate the effort, but its really of too low a quality to be used. Shellbabelfish 14:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image tagged public domain. Addhoc (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete image was found here. – jaksmata 15:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. Original work submitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whompy40 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not original work. That's cutting and pasting together images found on the internet - called a derivative work. Original work is when you use a camera and take a picture yourself, or you draw something yourself. – jaksmata 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted image tagged public domain. Addhoc (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I can't find any direct evidence that this is a copyright volation, the other two images this editor uploaded at the same time (Image:PressurePlate.jpg and Image:StarRotor.jpg) are obviously not self-created as claimed, therefore I'm inclined to believe that this is also a copyright violation. – jaksmata 15:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author who uploaded the image, has requested that the image be deleted, since its use will not be notable to Wikipedia. ZenlaxTCS 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
