Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 July 10

July 10

Image:Fuck off22.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Negativecreep (notify). OR, UE ... umm ... yeah- BigDT 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fucking USA.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by ThreeAnswers (notify). The image is incorrectly tagged as an audio musical recording, so it could be speedy deleted. This image is the complete score to a work of music (and believe me, I use the term loosely). There is no way that a complete score constitutes fair use.- BigDT 02:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is a protest folk song, and therefore probably noncommercial and in the public domain. 71.132.132.147 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial != public domain. Works of Virginia Tech, for example, are still subject to copyright even though they are non-commercial. Your edits to Wikipedia, even though non-commercial, are not public domain (unless you specifically declare them to be such).

Image:Fuckyouass.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Ricktorn (notify). UE, patently false licensing claim- BigDT 02:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Full.pdf (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Rajspot (notify). OR (which, in this case, stands for both "orphan" and "original research"), WP:NFT- BigDT 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tichondrius2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by DarthRahn (notify). The uploader originally said that he found it on some website [1]. There is no evidence that the copyright holder has released their copyright.- BigDT 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Full.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by DarthRahn (notify). OR, UE, tagged as pd-self, but it is highly unlikely that this image is neither itself copyrighted nor a derivative of copyrighted images- BigDT 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shandris-Feathermoon2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by DarthRahn (notify). The uploader originally said that he found it on some website [2]. There is no evidence that the copyright holder has released their copyright.- BigDT 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alleria.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by DarthRahn (notify). Another image uploaded by DarthRahn, no evidence that the copyright owner has released their rights.- BigDT 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are images marked as fair use screenshots uploaded by User:Bird-Phobia (notify) ... they are used only on his user page and nowhere else: BigDT 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following images are marked as free images, uploaded by User:Bird-Phobia (notify), but are wholy unencyclopedic, used only on his/her user page, and most likely a derivative of a non-free source. One image in particular, Image:JackThompson-NO edited.jpg, is speedyable as an attack image: BigDT 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shockley.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by TexasDawg (notify). OR, patently false license, media photo and thus cannot qualify for fair use. There ought to be a criterion for speedy delete for this one.- BigDT 03:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:Shockley2.jpg, identical to the above BigDT 03:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DBTs.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by TexasDawg (notify). OR, contains two license tags - one is fair use, in which case as an orphan, this image should be deleted - the other is a patently false claim of CopyrightedFreeUse- BigDT 04:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sillacrowntomboftheheavenlyhorse.gif

Uploaded by User:Tortfeasor. This was a fair use image and I found one a similar image of the same object with a by Attribution license. Thanks. Tortfeasor 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cunt.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by MilesPark (notify). OR, UE- BigDT 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me!.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Justanobody (notify). OR, UE, the original image was replaced by another one and the original uploader, who has no contributions after creating his user page over a year ago, uses a different picture of himself. The user who replaced the image has been blocked. So it's all around useless.- BigDT 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amanda2.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by LoraLadd (notify). UE, OR, user has no contributions other than uploading three images last year- BigDT 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me&noel2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by LoraLadd (notify). UE, OR, user has no contributions other than uploading three images last year- BigDT 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Background.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by LoraLadd (notify). UE, OR, user has no contributions other than uploading three images last year- BigDT 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crappy sweat pants.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Cooliosanchez (notify). I can't imagine a possible use for this one ...- BigDT 06:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tuxpaint-a-girls-bedroom.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Billkendrick (notify). UE, OR.- Tangot a ngo 10:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tuxpaint-girl-and-zaurus.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by =Billkendrick (notify). UE, OR.- Tangot a ngo 10:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Najam teaching.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Admn404 (notify). Used only on Adil Najam (and only good for that subject), recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil Najam. Mango juice^talk 13:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adil @ Fletcher.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Admn404 (notify). Same as the previous one. Only good for Adil Najam, which was deleted at AfD. Mango juice^talk 13:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clear1x1.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Omniplex (notify). UE,OB - image is gif, not correct format pschemp | talk 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone can explain its purpose. —David Levy 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose was for technical discussions and pages like WP:EIS, where image, format, and compression are irrelevant as long as they work with "any" browser. A compressed transparent dot as used by Google is 2 bytes smaller, a transparent 1*1*1 PNG is of course also possible for popular browsers. This and Category:Wikipedia image placeholders were supposed to be obvious. 89.51.16.119 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This one actually does seem to be a test. Ardric47 02:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red-x.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Omniplex (notify). UE, OB - editor converted pmg to gif and substituted gif, gif is incorrect format pschemp | talk 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above summary is misleading. Omniplex took my inefficient PNG with a solid background, and he significantly improved it; he managed to create a GIF version with a transparent background that's 71% smaller. Upon conversion back to PNG-8, he found that this actually resulted in a slightly larger file than the GIF. As you can see, the PNG-8 version of this icon (optimized via PNGOUT) is 37 bytes larger. There's absolutely no logical reason to switch to it. We don't follow the rules purely for the sake of following the rules. —David Levy 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The edit form I'm currently typing in is 61 kilobytes of HTML in my browser. The main page is 53 kilobytes. If 37 bytes is significant enough to affect display performance for anyone, then they must spend the best part of a week waiting for every page to load. GIF format is for animations. There is already a PNG version of this. --bainer (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not that 37 bytes makes a substantive difference; it's that the file size benefit typically associated with PNGs is nonexistent in this instance.

Please cite one advantage of switching to the PNG. A disadvantage is that it's incompatible with some older browsers. (I'm not saying that we should compromise the site's integrity for the benefit a small minority of users, but we shouldn't go out of our way to mess things up for them.) —David Levy 15:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral—I can see both sides. Ardric47 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG is our standard. Switching BACK from a PNG to a GIF (which is unfree, by the way, or was) seems a bad bad idea. Delete and resubstitute back. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unisys LZW patents have expired. A month from now, GIF will be a 100% free format. I'm still waiting for someone to cite one reason why this particular PNG is preferable (aside from "the rules say so"). Again, it's larger and less compatible. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so why are we treating it like one? —David Levy 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GIF is limited to binary transparency. The upshot: either the image suffers from the halo effect, or the image must have its colors reduced, resulting in ugly jagged edges. Currently, the GIF image suffers from the halo effect. When you view the image on a darker background, an ugly "halo" of white pixels surrounds the image. To be fair, the current PNG image also suffers from this problem, but I have created a 592 byte (optimized) transparent PNG from the SVG source that is free of it. Furthermore, we shouldn't embrace legacy technology just to save an insignificant few bytes. PNG was created to replace GIF and is now the new standard, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. That should be enough. Punctured Bicycle 01:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why are you viewing the image on a dark background? It was created specifically for use in templates with a hexadecimal background color of #F9F9F9.

2. The idea is not to "save an insignificant few bytes." It's to maintain maximum compatibility. The notion that we should blindly replace GIFs for the sake of replacing them is ludicrous.

3. This icon is based upon the previous version of the SVG. The new one contains styling that doesn't match the other icons from this template series. Also, our icon incorporates a darker shade of red and different relative dimensions (30x30 instead of 30x34). And of course, your PNG-24 icon will render without transparency for 85% of Internet users. How is this preferable to a "halo" that's invisible when the icon is used as intended?

4. As there's little logic in retaining the larger PNG-8 conversion of the GIF, I've gone ahead and replaced it with an optimized PNG-24 version with alpha-transparency and a fallback background color of #F9F9F9 for IE6 users. Note, however, that it's 3.8 times larger than the GIF and entirely incompatible with some older browsers. —David Levy 05:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having the flexibility to view on dark backgrounds is the entire point of transparency. If the image's use is restricted to #F9F9F9 backgrounds, then why use transparency at all? Use a solid #F9F9F9 background in the image instead. However, the new PNG image you uploaded with the fallback background seems to work well for both IE6 users (accounting for the 85% of users I assume your talking about) and Firefox users. So, why shouldn't we delete the GIF? The GIF is smaller, but you are now saying that size is not the issue, so we can disregard size. The other point you make in support of this GIF is to maximize compatibility. With your new PNG, the majority of viewers seem to have been taken care of. That leaves the minority. Surely you aren't saying we should pander to the few users still clinging to browsers that have highly limited or nonexistent PNG support. If that were the case, why not lobby to replace PNGs entirely with GIFs? The answer, of course, is because that would be insanity. Why should we keep this GIF? Punctured Bicycle 08:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the first upload of Image:Red x.png, you'll see that it did have a solid background. That's the file from which Omniplex derived Image:Red-x.gif. He managed to create a version that's smaller (not of vital consequence, but a plus), matches any reasonably similar background (not merely this particular shade of gray), and is compatible with more browsers. As noted above, the optimized PNG-8 conversion of this GIF was slightly larger, so it provided no advantages. (The only difference was less compatibility.)

My new version of the PNG looks good on all backgrounds for 15% of users. For the remaining 85%, it looks good only on a background with a hexadecimal color of #F9F9F9. That's fine for these particular templates, but the GIF version also works well with white and other shades of light gray. (The same applied to the previous PNG version, but why duplicate the smaller GIF?) Why do you object to the idea of editors having the ability to choose the version that best applies to the situation?

As for compatibility, I'm not arguing that we should reduce the site's quality for the benefit of a small minority of users. I'm saying that there's no logical reason to exclude such individuals when we can accommodate them while still obtaining comparable results for ourselves. No, the size difference isn't major, but the fact that the GIF version is smaller means that one of the usual arguments against the format is inapplicable. —David Levy 12:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, let's get back to the 21st century. (→Netscott) 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite an actual disadvantage of the GIF icon (compared to a PNG-8 version), or do you simply believe that newer formats are automatically better 100% of time? (I've read your other comments on this matter, so I already know the answer). Do you derive satisfaction from pointlessly reducing compatibility for "individuals utilizing 1995 level browsers"? (How DARE they?! They must be punished!) Should we also replace our HTML with Flash? It's newer, so it must be better. Right? —David Levy 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Levy, let's really make Wikipedia compatible for all browsers..... 1991 isn't that far before 1995... so let's just ensure that the Wikipedia project is fully compliant with Textual browsers ok? I mean we're pointlessly limiting the access of folks utilizing such browsers when we have all of this imagery code that those browsers can't properly display (and which correspondingly destroys any given page for them that shows graphics) no? Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, our use of imagery isn't pointless. It improves the site's appearance and functionality for most users (and many text-based browsers are capable of coping by simply ignoring it). Conversely, switching from a GIF to an 8-bit PNG that's slightly larger and less compatible but otherwise pixel-for-pixel identical benefits no one.

You're comparing the switch from GIF to PNG with the upgrade from textual to graphical navigation, and I'm still waiting for you to explain how the former provides one actual advantage in this instance. —David Levy 02:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I think perhaps you've failed to understand the gist of my argument... I'm not talking about modern day text browsers I'm talking about 1991 text browsers. The imagery code destroys pages for those browsers and limits the access of those utilizing such browsers. Let's get rid of the imagery code and stick with just text so 1991 browsers can properly display Wikipedia articles. (→Netscott) 02:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is irrelevant, as no one is advocating the removal of any content that improves the site's functionality for anyone.

I've been very clear in stating that we obviously can't always accommodate users of "legacy" browsers. I've also been very clear in stating that I see no reason for us to go out of our way not to. In other words, if there's something substantial to be gained by switching to a newer technology (even one that reduces compatibility), it might make sense to do so. Again, what do we gain by switching this particular icon from GIF to PNG? —David Levy 02:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We gain modernity pure and simple. Look, all gifs are going to go the way of the dodo. Now is as good a time as any to move away from using that standard completely and it makes sense to have uniformity in the image standards we're applying. Let gifs be for the animations as specified in image guidelines and let everything else be PNGs and SVGs... mmmkay? (→Netscott) 03:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't okay to abandon a perfectly good image format for no valid reason. (A desire to blindly use the cool new format—even in instances in which it provides nothing but technical disadvantages—is not valid.) The GIF format is 100% compatible with graphical browsers old and new. At no point in the foreseeable future will it cease to be supported by modern Internet software, so I'm baffled by your assertion that we need to "move away from using [it] completely." In fact, I'd argue that it makes less sense than ever to do so, as it's only 26 days away from becoming a 100% free standard. Now is when we should begin embracing GIFs for applications in which PNGs provide no significant advantages. There's absolutely no harm in allowing the different formats to co-exist; your quest for unconditional "uniformity" is irrational. —David Levy 03:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May the spirit of the Luddites relative to new technologies be never forgotten. Sorry David Levy that you haven't been able to convince me... I suppose I'm too much of a "cutting edge" technologist. (→Netscott) 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of implying that my position is tantamount to that of a Luddite (despite the fact that I embrace new technologies), how about actually addressing my points? Why must we eliminate all non-animated GIFs? What leads you to believe that they'll soon become less usable or that we somehow benefit from the "uniformity" that stems from their absence?

You seem to be the opposite of a Luddite; instead of rejecting newer technologies, you blindly reject older ones (even when they work better).

Repeatedly claiming that GIF=old=bad and PNG=new=good—without citing a single technical advantage to replacing this particular GIF with a PNG—is not a valid deletion argument. —David Levy 03:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that such imagery as this mistagged (license) browser screen cap uploaded by the editor who uploaded this image up for deletion has me a bit biased. (→Netscott) 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omniplex uploaded a bunch of bad images, but that has no bearing on this one. In case you didn't notice, seven of his other images are listed on this page, and I've voted to delete all of them. —David Levy 04:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already cited a single technical advantage to replacing this particular GIF with a PNG a long time ago, but you seem to have forgotten or are ignoring it. There are two scenarios we can imagine for a GIF derived from the SVG source: 1. Anti-aliasing was checked when the image was resized to 30x30. This leads to the halo effect, a degrade in quality that is not "pixel-by-pixel identical" with the PNG. 2. Anti-aliasing was not checked when the image was resized to 30x30. Or, we decide to draw the image from scratch at 30x30 without using anti-aliasing. This leads to aliasing (jaggedness), a degrade in quality that is not "pixel-by-pixel identical" with the PNG. Punctured Bicycle 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plainly stated above that I was comparing the GIF version to the PNG-8 version. The PNG-24 version has its own advantages and disadvantages (as noted in my previous reply to you).

Are you under the impression that we're required to delete all but one version of an image? We aren't. It's perfectly reasonable to use one format for some applications and another format for others. (It isn't as though I'm suggesting that we should retain the GIF and delete the other formats.) The fact that it's disadvantageous to use the GIF (instead of the PNG-24) in some circumstances doesn't mean that we should never use it for anything. The templates in question look no better with the PNG-24 version than they do with the GIF version, so I see no valid reason to use the file that's less compatible and 3.8 times larger. —David Levy 04:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's PNG-8 or PNG-24 is irrelevent. PNG-24's own disadvantages have no bearing on the fact that GIF is inferior to PNG in terms of quality; GIF's technological limitations will never allow it to have graphical quality equal to the current PNG. You said you "embrace new technology" like PNG-24, even if it reduces compatability, as long as there is a real advantage (as opposed to "illogical" ones like 'new is better' and 'consistency is important'). You prodded us to cite one advantage, and I gave you one relevent to the image. Now you have bounced to a different argument without engaging my point.Punctured Bicycle 07:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PNG-8/PNG-24 distinction most certainly is relevant, and the blanket statement that "GIF is inferior to PNG in terms of quality" is not always true. The former is capable of displaying exactly the same visual information as the GIF format (no more, no less), but it usually provides smaller file sizes—but not in this instance. The latter is capable of displaying images that look significantly better—but not in these templates. All PNGs are less compatible than GIFs (and always will be).

Yes, I embrace new technology...when there's something to be gained. Again, I asked Netscott to cite one advantage of the PNG-8 version (because his argument related to the belief that we magically benefit by displaying the same icon in the newer format). Nonetheless, if the PNG-24 version looked better in these templates, that would be a defensible tradeoff. It doesn't. You cited an advantage "relevant to the image," but not one relevant to the templates. You definitely have made the case that the GIF looks bad on dark backgrounds. That, however, is a reason to not use it on dark backgrounds. It is not a reason to delete the GIF (which looks fine on light backgrounds). Similarly, I've cited the fact that the PNG-24 version looks good for 85% of users only on a hexadecimal background color of #F9F9F9 (as opposed to the GIF, which looks good on any white or light gray background). The GIF also is smaller and more compatible.

The PNG-24 version and the GIF version each provide advantages and disadvantages, so why must we delete the latter? Why can't we keep both? —David Levy 13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are now saying OK, GIF may be disadvantaged in this situation, but "the templates in question look no better with the PNG-24 version than they do with the GIF version, so I see no valid reason to use the file that's less compatible". Essentally you are saying that the image's primary use is on templates with a particular background color, and the quality difference is imperceptable in such a situation, thus it isn't worth it to sacrafrice compatibility. But now we return to a previous point. Given that we are now restricted to "the templates in question", we may observe that the current PNG looks fine in both IE6 and Firefox. That accounts for the majority of users, and thus the image is actually compatible for our relevent audience. In other words, if we restrict ourselves to the "templates in question", as you are doing in your current argument, the PNG image is both technically superior to the GIF and reasonably compatible. Punctured Bicycle 07:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The icon's use within the templates is the pertinent "situation" (as you acknowledge in the following sentence), so the GIF is not "disadvantaged in this situation." Your assertion that users of older browsers are not part of "our relevant audience" is utterly offensive. I accept the fact that we can't always fully accommodate these people, but to claim that they're irrelevant is quite a nasty insult. In this case, of course, we can accommodate these users without affecting the templates' appearance for anyone else. Why shouldn't we?! —David Levy 13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted. Usage replaced in templates, but left it as-is everywhere else. howch e ng {chat} 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Octagon-warning.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Omniplex (notify). UE, OB - editor converted pmg to gif and substituted gif, gif is incorrect format pschemp | talk 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The "OB" refers to commons:Image:Octagon-warning.png. Ardric47 02:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's stated in the image:Octagon-warning.gif summary. "The user" (insert sockpuppet tag here) wanted the block icon visible with "any" incl. his browser on "any" incl. his talk page. 89.51.16.119 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after orphaning. Poor-quality conversion. —David Levy 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PNG/SVG are Wikipedia standard--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only after updating (not orphaning) all of the links. Ardric47 02:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, do you people realize that this image is used on almost 1000 pages? If anyone has a bot I can assign this task to, I would be grateful. Otherwise, it's taking forever doing this using AWB (and I've only done 350 so far). howch e ng {chat} 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it. Not deleted. This image has already been replaced in the current templates with the SVG version. After spending hours yesterday replacing GIF versions with the PNG and SVG versions and only getting about half of them done, I'm leaving it here unless someone else wants to take on the replacement work. howch e ng {chat} 16:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lock-icon.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Omniplex (notify). UE,OB - image is gif, not correct format pschemp | talk 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor-quality conversion. —David Levy 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PNG/SVG are Wikipedia standard--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The "OB" tag does not apply; there is no identical image in another format. Ardric47 02:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Omniplex (notify). UE,OB - image is gif, not correct format pschemp | talk 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after orphaning. Poor-quality conversion. —David Levy 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion probably by the creator of the logo, the original upload log on Meta was lost in a server crash. Later used on m:Help:Images and other uploaded files. 89.51.16.119 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PNG/SVG are Wikipedia standard--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; there doesn't seem to be an equivalent. I'll change to delete if one turns up. Ardric47 02:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out image:Wikipedia logo.gif, image:Wikipedia Logo.gif (relatively big but nice), image:Wikipedia Logo Blue.jpg (also big and not transparent of course), there's a zoo at Special:Prefixindex/Image:Wikipedia including spam like image:WikipediaLogo.jpg. 89.51.16.119 15:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted. Usage was replaced in templates, but it was used in User:Thetruthbelow's signature for a while and unless someone is willing to replace all the usages, I'll leave it. howch e ng {chat} 16:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Red copyright.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Omniplex (notify). UE,OB - image is gif, not correct format pschemp | talk 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor-quality conversion. —David Levy 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PNG/SVG are Wikipedia standard--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For another tack on breaking backwards compatibility without visible difference for popular browsers take Template:-(edit talk links history), the legacy clear="all" can be replaced by inline CSS as documented on its talk page. More ideas how to exclude minorities collected on WP:WAI. HTH and good hunting, 89.51.16.119 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to commons:Image:Red copyright.svg. Ardric47 02:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Green check.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Omniplex (notify). UE,OB - image is gif, not correct format pschemp | talk 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor-quality conversion. —David Levy 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PNG/SVG are Wikipedia standard--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Image:Yes check.svg. Ardric47 02:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source image:Yes check.svg and purpose = proposed replacement for image:Green check.png are stated on the page, the revert warriors on Template:Policy(edit talk links history) didn't accept this compromise. In that sense it's redundant, technically wrt CSD I1 and compatibility it's not. 217.251.173.136 10:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikipediaSignpostHead.gif (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Omniplex (notify). UE,OB - image is gif, not correct format pschemp | talk 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor-quality conversion. —David Levy 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PNG/SVG are Wikipedia standard--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your next project wrt WP:PAIN take a look at commons:Special:Prefixindex/Merge-a, there's a pocket of resistance working with "any" browser which could be upgraded to exclude folks stupidly refusing to upgrade their browser because they can't. 89.51.16.119 16:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Ardric47 02:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asian red dog.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Baldhur (notify). Upload description says public domain, but the URL given asserts a copyright for all media that it shows. A December 2003 version of the page is available from archive.org, but nothing that I see there implies that the images are public domain.- BigDT 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marlingenglishfloor.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Celestianpower (notify). UE see WP:NFT (I.e. this image is unhelpful and unencyclopedic. It appears to have been taken during lessons probably with a cell phone camera and seems to be the type of in-joke covered by the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Eluchil404 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Directly relates to a section of the article it is used in. That section is referenced. Image therefore is helpful and encyclopedic. Method of taking pictures (cellphone, 35mm, APS, pinhole in a box) is irrelevant. WP:NFT doesn't apply to images used to illustrate an encyclopedic article in an encyclopedic way. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that section of the article needs a rewrite. It reads like a OR/POV rant about the condition of their school. If there are no verifiable sources discussing the renovation, then that section needs to go away and thus, so would these pictures. BigDT 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while I clearly can't vote (having taken the picture) I feel a comment is necessary. It wasn't taken with a phone, but an old digital camera of the schools. And not in lessons either. The article definately needs a rewrite, yes. I tried to add some sources (the OFSTED reports) once and might do it again. But I don't reckon it should be deleted until this has happened and we know whether its needed or not. Regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Celestianpower's description is true Minun ^{(マイナン)} 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Armenian-flag-ararat.png (talk | delete)

Created and uploaded by me (notify). -- Clevelander 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TeslaCoil0645576.PNG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Tesla coil (notify). Unused anywhere. --BrownCow  (how now?) 23:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]