Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg

File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2011 at 17:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg

300px|SHORT DESCRIPTION

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Since the original file [[1]] was deleted for alleged copyright violation of a character in a public place and a public event, I must replace the file sans the offending part. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing special without the censored ballon, and high noise. Galandil (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just to let you know, the original image was a featured picture. --Jovian Eye _storm 00:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Support yes :-) More rights for photographers...! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too strange for me. --Stryn (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose This is clearly not a valuable picture. –Makele-90 (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong support as a sign of protest for the deletion of the original. I dont understand the basis for the deletion. Given the rationale used for deletion, several images can be deleted from commons by using this case as a precedent. Are we going to delete the category of mascots? They too are works of art who can walk! --Jovian Eye _storm 00:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Support As a protest as well. The original should be restored. --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Support The fist to the sky. ;-) --Ritchyblack (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose FP nominations page is not a battlefield. --Dodo (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is not a censorship issue but a copyrights issue. พ.s. 08:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  CommentEvery corner of the universe is a battlefield against censorship. And Hans, this is a censorship issue, read the dictionary. A spade is a spade. And on another note, let´s not forget that art, whether you consider this art or not, for the idea of art is above any individual´s consideration, always has an ideological consideration, like it or not, evident or not. It is an instrument of communication. FP is a place where images, including art, have a place, and as such, the whole realm of its considerations apply. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Disruptive nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ad Dodo.--Karelj (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - A.Savin 06:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Simply disruptive from someone who should know and behave better - sad. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Why is it hard for some of you to respect legitimate ideas and concerns about a very serious issue such as censorship. Passing judgement as lightly as some of you do about this issue speaks volumes of the state of sensibilization about this phenomena. It is obvious that it is not a concern, and as such, censorship has such a soft spot from which to enter and establish itself. You may not agree on my posture regarding censorship and may be offended by my critisism of it, yet I am also offended by the silence that promotes it. And Herbythyme, it is so arrogant on your part to tell me I should know better, do you know better? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to your views - sadly licensing is not about your views but legality. There is nothing at all light about the judgement on legal issues I assure you (neither is it censorship which I something I am against). I am sure you will continue to hold your views despite any real legal facts. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Herbythyme: There is a legal expression that says: Not everything that is legal is just, and not everything that is just is legal. Legality is a human creation, and as such, subject to many flaws. At one point in history slavery was legal, and considering such precedent, we can assume that many other legal issues answer to the same baseless logic. Legal defense of legitimate intellectual property is absolutely fine with me, but censorship masqueraded as a legal issue is an altogether different animal. For all you know, you (or any of us) may be doing the devil´s bidding without knowing it. But regardless of ethical, legal and moral considerations, censorship it is.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose - There is room on Commons for political images, and one on the subject of copyright could be good enough to be a reasonable nomination for FP. This, however, isn't. Jonathunder (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Image was uploaded only to make a point. —Angr 16:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Question Doesn´t every image makes a point? Aesthetic, illustration of physical phenomena, arquitecture, historical, medical, political and sociological, etc., etc.? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per w:WP:POINT and too much inside baseball. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above --Citron (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)