From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Hello this is an Archive. Please do not edit. You are welcome to post comments regarding material here at my
user talk page .
Always believe in yourserf and your dreams, you have a wing!
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Archive , January 2007 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
hello,
If I remember well, I have uploaded only the six images you have already found. Okki 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Here is the criteria Redundant/bad quality . Don't delete other people's requests, even if it is not valid. There will be administrators to decide whether these images should be kept or not. Cariner 18:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
For your info I am an administrator. --Cat out 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
You are not categorized as an administrator. Anyway, please be aware of the Commons:Deletion guidelines#Redundant/bad quality ctiteria. My request is in good faith. Please don't make arbitrary judgements. Cariner 18:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
You can be assured that I am indeed an administrator here on commons, not that it is a big thing. I merely dislike the admin category.
Your nominations for "bad quality" includes high res orbital satellite images of metropolitan areas and other perfectly good images, I frankly find that disruptive.
--Cat out 08:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Well, I guess I should list the reason of Redundant in addition to Bad Quality . Image:Shenyang from International Space Station.jpg is redundant and bad quality compared with image:Shenyang 123.38236E 41.77365N.jpg , which is better high re orbital satellite image of metro Shenyang. Is this ok with you? Cariner 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Yes you would need to tell us why it is redundant and link to the other version so we know its genuinely redundant.
I do not consider either image redundant or bad quality. Both are good orbital pictures of same region.
--Cat out 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
I'd like to know the reason of this image. --Cat out 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
It's just a parody of original Image:Troll_school.jpg . Check it on the Wikipedia plz -- Walt e r Humala Walt e r Humala Emperor of West Wikipedia God save him! wanna Talk? wanna Talk? 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
How is that in our project scope? --Cat out 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Maye it isn't but pleae let me keep it here, its just a gdfl. Thanks. -- Walt e r Humala Walt e r Humala Emperor of West Wikipedia God save him! wanna Talk? wanna Talk? 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Ok let me rephrase this question. Tell me one reason that I shouldn't delete the image for not being in project scope. --Cat out 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
jfyi: I've removed the deletion tag from that image page because after 16 days nothing happened: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PokemonMini.JPG --32X 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]
Thank you for notifying me, unless a deletion debate is closed that template should not have been removed. IN the future dont do it. :) I am closing that debate as a "keep" since no one complained about the image. --Cat out 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [ reply ]