User talk:Peripitus

Jay J Armes

I got notice that the picture of Jay J Armes has been deleted, I think by you. Why? I had all the correct permissions from the photographer and subject. see: Http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=%3AImage%3AJayJArmes.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerPaw2154 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg

Hello, in closing this IfD, did you properly consider the replaceability argument made towards the end of the discussion by Calliopejen? It turned out there are several free images available of exactly the same Boy Scout group in the same camp and the same year, e.g. Image:GranadaBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif. This argument wasn't addressed by any keep voter. If you feel this does not constitute replaceability, could you please explain why? (I've re-tagged the image as {{rfud}}, but the easiest way procedurally speaking would be if you just reconsidered your closure.) Please keep in mind that NFCC#1 is mandatory and cannot be overridden by local (non-)consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fut.Perf., I did consider the replacability of this in line with NFCC#1. Unfortunately I can't verify any of thinks given at the end of the article as, from here, I cannot open any of them. Given the detail of the debate I can't see any other conclusion than keep. While it may be hyperbole Rlevse did call it "unique", an no contributor to the debate indicated a replacement image (that I was able to view). If there was another image, freely licensed, that I could see that could be used in the article then NFCC#1 would come into play. Much more problematically I find, for Wikipedia in general, is the wide range of opinions on NFCC#8. I've stayed out of the debate as I have a very hard time understanding how the images in say, this article, significantly increase understanding of an audio recording. - Peripitus (Talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you're right, the links as given by Calliopejen weren't functional, that threw me off myself at first. But they are the ones that Rlevse himself uploaded to commons shortly after this one, two of them are Image:GranadaBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif and Image:ManzanarBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif (there are a couple more on Rlevse's user page on commons:User:Rlevse/gallery, and more here and here, for example. Boy, those are even much better than the band one!) Since the fact that these existed was pointed out only at the end of the discussion, it really makes the whole previous debate moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I uploaded the best one I could find here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless FP, it was kept and your orphaning it and tagging it right after closure as keep is less than ideal behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, is it replaceable or is it not? Don't get me started about what I think of your behaviour, Rlevse, since you were yourself the uploader of the free image and failed to mention it when you knew it existed, and since you failed to respond to the IfD once Calliopejen pointed it out. You have a lot of explaining to do here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I merely stated my opinion and let others state theirs. Unlike you, I didn't run around responging to everyone that disagreed with me in those two threads nor did I orphan an image immediately after it was kept. A far better course for you would have been to file a DRV-a process you are well aware of. You orphaned the image because you didn't like the IFD result, that's obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have to jump in here re: Future Perfect's unwarranted slam against Rlevse which does not address your own misdeeds but deflects the issue onto another party. Rlevse was pointing out that you, as an admin, appeared to violate WP:OWN, as others pointed out in the deletion debate, by so hastily orphaning this image. The whole deletion debate smacks of your condescension and narrowmindedness. Look to yourself before you start blaming others.Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• As does his improper close of another deletion discussion as "delete" when all three good-faith commenters recommended "keeping" with good-faith, NFCC-based rationales. I think perhaps FPaS should step back from IfD and other image-related discussions until such time as he can be more level-headed and objective in such discussions. ^S._D.Jameson 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the, seemingly appropriate, change of image in the article to a free one, perhaps we have a resolution. Original can be tagged unused-fair use and non-controversially deleted in a week, via the normal process? Peripitus (Talk) 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I could support this, though I can envision useage of the photograph in the future, if the article is expanded to further discuss the activities of the scouts in that camp. ^S._D.Jameson 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with S. Dean Jameson's comments here. Like him, I believe that the final outcome here (replacing the band image with one of Calliopejen's freely licensed images) was correct (despite my earlier "keep" vote). Also like him, I believe that Future Perfect went about it in a way that was (at the very least) unbecoming a responsible editor, much less an admin. The appropriate course of action for FP here would be to pursue a DRV or simply re-nominate the image for deletion in order to continue seeking consensus in light of Calliopejen's information. Simply unilaterally orphaning the image was not appropriate. If folks are correct that FP is showing a pattern of behavior here, and that pattern continues in the future, then the community has a problem to address.

I also agree with Peripitus's suggestion that the band image be speedied at this point, since that is an appropriate final outcome. (Heck, I'll do it myself.) But the final disposition of the image is secondary in my mind to supporting the discussion and consensus ethics of Wikipedia over individual editors going cowboy. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll come clean. I just added {{db-i5}} to Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg. Then I actually used my brain and realized that I had done exactly what I had just finished banging on FP for doing - that is, short-circuiting a consensus discussion that was still under way. So I (shamefacedly) removed the speedy tag again in favor of registering my support for Peripitus's suggestion. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, gotcha :-) {{orfud}} would work just fine, it's a mere neutral statement of fact. Not that these procedural details matter overly much, of course. Personally, if I may say so, I'd perhaps prefer it if Peripitus could also add an additional note to his closure marking that the image had actually turned out to be replaceable, just to have it documented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Those two templates are redundant and need to be merged. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Footbo

Peripitus, isnt that the case? There were news sources and press releases referenced - I think the sources were TechCrunch and PRNewswire - both independent. What else is required? Inspiredminds (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peripitus, thanks for the pointers and advice. I have edited the text a little and added some further references. I was hoping you might be able to give it a quick glance-over and let me know if it needs more work before submission. It is located in my sandbox. Thanks again Inspiredminds (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for the feedback. Have added some more independent references (there are plenty out there - but didnt want to overload the article with too many). Is it sufficient? Thanks again Inspiredminds (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Western isles.gif - delete and restor

The reason I restored it was that I expected a Commons image to come through, which didn't happen. Also the flag did not appear to be that of Western Isles. I was confused and out of time, so I just restored it and planned to get back to it later. It look like another admin has already deleted the image. -Thanks, Nv8200p talk 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

juninho photo

are you crazy the photo of juninho is not a tv photo but a real photo and i made at the stadium of lyon... stop to cancel in this year the page of juninho is continuously destroy I am the only one who have improved in better the page.... stop to destroy stop!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babboleolr (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your help. --Babboleolr (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png

I'm sorry I have to bother you again about that old issue of the scouting photographs you closed at IfD the other day. I was thoroughly fed up with the issue at the time, but now (after considerable amounts of good coffee and somewhat less of glenfiddich) I've decided it is just too important to let it rest, because it sets a dangerous precedent. I've seen you making responsible and seriously considered XfD closures in the meantime, so I trust we can have a calm and intelligent discussion about this one, and I'd like to ask you for your ideas on how to proceed from here.

I'm still strongly of the opinion this image fails fair use (not just wikijargon-fairuse, but reallife-fairuse), and on re-reading the policy page, I'm struck even more strongly by just how blatantly it fails even the project rules, to an extent I really fail to understand how this could possibly ever pass debate. Just look at WP:NFC#Unacceptable use, especially point 4:

• "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)."

It is quite obvious that the scouting image falls in just this category: it would be ridiculous to claim it is "iconic", and there clearly is no non-trivial discussion about the image as an image in the article. The guideline (together with the other similar examples that come with it) are crystal clear on this point: an image cannot be used simply as a vehicle for illustrating encyclopedic discussion of something else that we happen to find interesting; it can only be used if it, as an image, is a subject of encyclopedic discussion in its own right. This is the essence of what all the examples reiterate. (Obviously, a trivial sentence or caption simply stating what it shows is not "discussion" in this sense.)

The reason why I'm so insistent is, debate about non-free content has shifted in a dangerous direction recently, and this decision is setting a dangerous precedent. People have become used to the idea that legal "fair use" conditions and our internal "non-free content" conditions are two different things. Okay so far. But that in turn has led to the misconception that legal fair use concerns are of no importance of all, and we only need to fulfill the letter of the NFCC checklist. People suddenly seem to believe that "fair use" as such gives us carte blanche to use whatever we like and that the whole issue is just about our voluntary self-restriction. Wrong, of course. And the wording of NFCC, if taken in isolation in this way, is vague enough that it allows ridiculously wide interpretations. Here, it has led to a reading according to which, basically, we can use anything and everything simply provided we find it interesting. Because "it's interesting" is essentially the only keep argument there was.

However, NFCC8 is not vague at all if it is read in the context of (a) the foundation mandate that non-free content must be minimized, and (b) the larger WP:NFC guideline, which is older and, in a sense, even more authoritative than the NFCC "policy" checklist; and which focusses much more on the idea of genuinely fulfilling the spirit of fair use. The idea that images must be subject, not vehicle, of encyclopedic commentary has been a very solid, longstanding consensus, and that's what the NFC page embodies. The "guideline" forms the authoritative explanation of how the "policy" needs to be interpreted, and it was only under the understanding that it would be interpreted in a spirit at least as strict as this prior practice that the "policy" was accepted as our official "exemption doctrine" by the Foundation.

A local consensus at IfD or an administrator acting on its basis in closing an IfD simply have no right to override this long-standing principle.

So, what do we do now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Local consensus at IfD" on how to interpret NFCC does (or should) override the interpretation of one administrator when closing an IfD. There's no consensus on how to interpret #8, so consensus does hold sway, according to the closing instructions provided at IfD. ^S._D.Jameson 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Peripitus, thank you very much for your thoughtful response, much of which I can agree with. I can respect your stance of subordinating your own opinion under that of the voters, although I still don't really think it's the right thing to do, in a case where a central policy issue is at stake. The thing I'm still uncomfortable with is the question of how to deal with the legal side. You basically say we have no way of knowing and we must wait for the lawyers to intervene (and until they do, we basically do what we want). I'm not comfortable with that. Okay, we all know that the issue is ultimately untested, because nobody bothers to sue somebody like us. But just because we can get away with it doesn't mean we're acting legally. For all I can see, fair use law is far less unclear on these issues than people believe. There are guidelines out there and well-documented opinions of professional people who deal with fair use issues in libraries, archives, universities and the like. They are all much, much more cautious than we. Our bold claim that just because we are non-profit we're always okay as long as we don't cause actual monetary loss to the other side most certainly doesn't match the understanding of the real world out there. We are really acting in self-deceit here; if we considered these things seriously, we would, even as laypeople, be compelled to come to a clear knowledge of wrongdoing. It may be true that because we're non-profit we're not a likely target of a lawsuit. But if we went by that logic, we could also freely steal every private flickr owner's images. They probably won't sue us either, will they? Thing is, it's always been our principle that we should voluntarily do what is right. Not whatever we can get away with.

And it most certainly isn't right to deprive that lady with the scouting images of her control over her private documents. In the particular case, I've actually been in contact with the archive to see if we can get a proper license. I'm still waiting for a response from the person most directly responsible (got a first reply from somebody else so far) - but I'm pretty sure what we'll hear from them is that they are by no means happy and contented we are claiming "fair use" on their material. Such institutions do expect people to ask permission from them – and to pay a fee for it, actually. And yes, that does apply to for-profit and non-profit publication alike.

Shall we wait to hear more from them, and then decide how to proceed further? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Claims

Hi, I just saw that you were the one who dealt with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Matthew_K_Sharp recently. I want to thank you for that but now today myself and another editor who have constantly had to revert vandalism to these pages had sock puppet tags added to our talk page by an IP. I have to assume that it's this same person since he said I'm "clearly" a vandal in some way. I removed the tag but realize that may not have been the correct mode of action so I apologize in advance. It would be nice if someone could deal with this. DX927 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Being the other man that's been labeled a sock puppet by said IP that you have tagged by User:ECW500, it would be definitely appreciated if you or someone you have contacts with to ban User:41.245.171.32. COOLRUNNER87 (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chipp

Why change it until we're forced to? Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough (I wasn't aware that the image had been up for deletion). Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting images

Don't delete the images that I just uploaded. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetch dickson (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Fetch but I have deleted all but the DVD/video covers. I found that all came from sources on the web and, by our term, are copyright violations. You should only upload images you own, you cannot take images from the internet and just edit/post them here - Peripitus (Talk) 05:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How come? Claudine's photo is in my folder and I edited it by myself as well as with Piolo and Toni's. I admit Kris' and Sam's were got from commercial websites. Who are you? Are you a Filipino? Do you know anything about these celebrities?

Claudine's photo appeared to be from a 2008 commercial photoshoot whose copyright is owned by Sasha Manuel. I'm not Filipino and know nothing of the people in the photos at all. All I can see is someone, with the best of intentions, adding images to articles. These images, as with most found on the web, are not freely licensed. For living people Wikipedia only accepts free images, that is those uploaded by a person who took the image. Editing the image does not affect the copyright ownership - it is still owned by the person who originally took the photo - Peripitus (Talk) 06:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well how come other Filipino celebrities' photos posted here were also posted in other sites? Are you the moderator of this site? How were you able to check that those images I've uploaded were owned by somebody else? What country are you from though? I am a supporter of those personalities so its kinda annoying when those facts I'm entering here is edited or deleted.

Image:Yone Minagawa3.JPEG

Hi, since you closed the Yone Minagawa IfD, could you perhaps also take care of the Image:Yone Minagawa3.JPEG? It was uploaded as an alternative during the same debate and falls under the same copyright situation. (I'd speedy it myself, but I've so many people howling murder at everything I do these days I'd rather not...) Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and also for the notification about that other DRV. I was aware of it but since there were three others in parallel I sort of couldn't be bothered to comment... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

AN Notice

I started a thread to ask for a review of my decline of an unblock request after Thunderbird dropped by my talk page. The thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting a review of my decline of an unblock request. Since you were involved, I am letting you know. –xeno (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

uploading image

I explained, under the image, that I've drawn it, based on that image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Macedonia_greece.png. It is written clearly down there that: This image is a mapping derived from products of the United Nations Cartographic Section. Modified versions of UNCS maps may be used provided that the UN name and reference number does not appear on any modified version and a link to the original map is provided. Modified UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide. The UN maps is an open source material. You can use them to make your own maps. You do not need our permission for that. Please be advised that the UN name and reference number should not appear on any modified map. The UN map is a UN document and cannot be modified. Drop me message. Thank you! --makedonas (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I think I can see how he made that map on the basis of Image:Macedonia greece.png – not scanning, but semi-mechanical re-drawing over an electronic copy within the graphics software. He then added only the coloring for the mountains. And since we now have established it really is from that source map, and the source map is PD, we'd be okay. But, Makedonas, why do you want your modified map in the first place, why not just use the more professionally done original? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I must also excuse for the misunderstanding, I'll explain more clearly the sources next time. User:El Greco was very aggressive against me, that's why I didn't defend myself. I put the modified version because it has more intensive colors and more details, about the relief of the terrain, transport etc. although it isn't so professionally done like the original. thanks again! --makedonas (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review New Cold War

I'm curious about your decision to close the review as an endorsement. First off I don't see any provision in the policy on deletion review for a non-consensus position. Secondly I would think if there isn't a consensus on whether deletion was justified in the first place that suggests the article should be restored, not remain deleted. Also you failed to address whether the reason for closure, original research, was sufficient reasoning for deletion and in keeping with deletion policy. You also didn't even address my concern about the closing admin admitting to having dismissed basically what amounted to all arguments for keeping the original article even though they were arguing for the notability and verifiability of the subject, core criteria for keeping articles. I would like to know exactly why you made your decision.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you or Coren properly evaluted the substance of the article. While the term was used during the Cold War that was more to describe a new phase in that conflict or another aspect of it. As such the article had properly noted it had another use for a period in the Cold War and directed readers to that article. Any claim the older usage of the term impacts the article itself is illegitimate. Also original research only comes into play when the subject itself is a product of original research. However, many articles and books discuss it as a concept and idea with a clear definition. The particular areas touched on in the article are all tied together in several articles on the subject, which I pointed out, so while the article itself may have used synthesis, the subject itself was not. This argument however, is simply unaddressed in both the decision to delete and your decision. You haven't given a good reason to dismiss this argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Mentions of a New Cold War during the Cold War were accounted for by citing that particular subject as one of its other uses. The article which was deleted was about its usage post-Cold War as the article itself made clear. That post-Cold War subject was sufficiently narrow and sufficiently notable to have an article on it. The only particular notable usage of the word post-Cold War that did not deal with Russia dealt with China. It was considerably more limited as well. This is of course not considering the usage of the term Second Cold War or Cold War II to refer to the problems. At the very least the serious deterioration is a notable subject and a rename could have been in order. I've seen several articles on notable subjects get deleted because of their name and I think this is just another case of that. I believe the name is notable enough to have a subject on, just like World War III, but I do not think the name is what should be used to bring down the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Laarni Losala Pictures

NO, those pictures were not from the TV, they were took directly from both PWU contest. One is campus idol and the other is Lights of A Million Morning she sang while on a party. And there is not the usual icon for television networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduhello (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

With someone else, i already asked for the permission from a user named dekloy.:

Eduhello (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_28#Image:AbruzziSpurRoute1.jpg

Hi Peripitus. I was about to post on this IfD but got edit conflicted with your close. I would have made the point that as Abdul Aziz is a Pakistani name, he was quite likely a local high altitude porter hired by the expedition (colloquially he'd probably be called a Sherpa, though strictly speaking you don't find many Sherpas in Pakistan), and local porters are typically not listed as expedition members, so the fact that his name doesn't appear isn't too surprising. As for John Canivley, again he doesn't have to have been a climber - if he was along as a film-maker who didn't climb on the mountain itself he wouldn't have been on the list of climbers either, though it's still a little odd that I couldn't find his name anywhere on Google. Another possibly noteworthy observation is that he claimed one picture as his own and attributed the other to Aziz - if he just nicked them from a website why not claim to have taken them both himself. I suppose I don't really object to your close as much of this is supposition, and to err on the side of caution is probably to delete it anyway (plus it wasn't that good a picture - it could be any climber's posterior on any mountain), but wouldn't have gone as far as to conclude the attribution was bogus, just uncertain - maybe I could persuade you to rephrase the reasoning? Best, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Peripitus, I don't know exactly how the image deletion process works, but it seems to me that when images are being proposed for deletion, there ought to be a courtesy note placed on the talk pages of the effected articles so that involved editors can participate in the discussion. Is there any sort of appeals process? --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here's my two cents about the deletion. The fact that the website you mentioned [1] doesn't contain the expedition is not a prove that there hasn't been such an expedition. K2climb.net states on this site: "Note: List is preliminary and subject to changes" and "Did we forget you or your friends? Mail us...". sorry, I just saw that k2climbs listed that expedition (I didn't see anything about "daring to dream" film) and Carl Drew et. al are mentioned. but the rest of my points is still usable somehow: The absence of the name johncanivley is not a prove either. Since when do usernames have to be a person's real name? And concerning Mr. Abdul Aziz: Well, I found this by using google: Homepage of the 2006 K2 expedition just scroll down to the article update from Carl & Kurt of July 18, 2006 and you will find out that Abdul Aziz is a high altitude porter (HAP) who was responsible for carrying the expedition's filming equipment. But HAPs usually do not bring their own camera. So it's most certainly as I guessed in the first place: Mr. Aziz took the camera on the mountain and pictured Carl Dew while climbing that ominous ladder. Johncanivley, the camera-owner's WP-username (maybe Carl Dew himself - but there's really no evidence for that guess...) uploaded it to WP and included it into the article. Iain99 might be right by stating that the picture doesn't really tell which mountain it is, but regarding the information i just found it seems rather authentic. So if you were assuming good faith in the first place you might react positively concerning my request for restoring the picture. Thanksalot. --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

@Marvin Diode: The user who proposed deletion unfortunately forgot to put a note on the K2-talkpage. Wikipedia:Deletion review ask you this before appealing on that page: 1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. So that's what I tried here... --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, but I was asking a more general question. I am not involved in the discussion over K2. There were some other images about which I was concerned. I'll start a new section. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra detective work Rupert. The fact that Aziz was a hired porter, particularly one involved with making a documentary, also means it's quite likely that someone other than him would own the copyright to a picture he took, regardless of the ownership of the camera. It seems quite plausible that John Canivley was a non-climber involved in making the film, which also employed Aziz. So while we can't know for certain that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder, the same is true of every photograph uploaded as "GFDL-self"; there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to doubt the validity of this one in particular, and the fact that the uploader went out of his way to credit the actual photographer is a reason to assume good faith. Peripitus, would you be willing to reconsider your close?

(incidentally Rupert, I didn't mean to imply that I doubt that the picture was actually taken on K2 - just that as a photo of a fairly nondescript piece of rock it's of limited use for showing the particular characteristics of that mountain. Still, it's better than nothing) Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 20:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:ZionismCampaigner.jpg

I was unaware that this image had been proposed for deletion. I think that it is extremely helpful to the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche, because one of the debates between LaRouche and his critics is over whether opposition to Zionism is a form of Anti-semitism. The magazine cover, which dates from the time of this debate, makes LaRouche's view that "Zionism is not Judaism" very clear, and I believe this is helpful because otherwise we are in dangerous waters with respect to BLP.

I'd like to add that I have seen the argument made before, I believe by the same editor (User:Cumulus Clouds,) that images who were uploaded by an editor who was subsequently banned must be deleted. I know of no Wikipedia policy which supports this view. Image uploads, like edits, should be evaluated on their own terms as to whether they are useful to the project. Therefore I request that the image be undeleted and restored, pending further discussion.

Finally, I'd like to return to my question in the previous section: when an image is being proposed for deletion, is there no mechanism whereby editors of the effected articles can be informed, so that they may participate in the discussion? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)