Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] August 2
[edit] Image:PorgressivePollResultsByVote.gif
- - uploaded by UkraineToday (notify | contribs).
- This image is unencyclopedic and low quality. It's impossible to see any valuable information from it. — TAG 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
User TAG.Odessa continues to exhibit extreme bias in his editing of current politial events. The graph i question portrays progressive opinion poll resulst relevant to the article . The user can click the graphic to display a higer resolution version of the graph. The information in relation to the article is in continual change and it this graph will also be updated to reflect adidtional polls.The progressive poll graph is teh best way of portraing polling information. Copy of the source data-file and citations are readily available and also publishsed on the Artcile discussion pages. User TAG. Odessa has been removing this information thus denying readers valuable public informtaion within the context of the article which is relevant to the article. We have noted that a number fo other comments that do not coincide with the personal politcial view of the complaintant has also been removed. User Tag.Odessa has also on previous occassions misinterperrated Wikiedia policy in seeking to edit and remove comments relevant to the pubhlished topic.
The Ukrainian Election is scheduled to take place on September 30. the public polling information shoudl be allowed to remain and on conslusion of the election replaced with a more appropiate grpaic shoing teh final election results. the removal of this information would leave Wikipedia open to allegations of polical bias. UkraineToday 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- All pool data was integrated into article as table at Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007. Supplied images is hard to see, update and verify by anybody other that original author. --TAG 20:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Image is free, is sourced from publicly available data, and usefully shows consistent polling trends. No reason to delete. Suggest, however, the image could be made clearer if colour coding was by party, rather than by date. Jheald 23:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the image description page must contain the source for the data. --Abu badali (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I find the table much easier to read than this graph, but that's more of an editorial decision. howcheng {chat} 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ProgressivePollResultsBySeats.gif
- - uploaded by UkraineToday (notify | contribs).
- This image is unencyclopedic and low quality. It's impossible to see any valuable information from it. — TAG 03:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
contribs).
- This image is unencyclopedic and low quality. It's impossible to see any valuable information from it. — TAG 03:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actions of complaintant displays political bias.
User TAG.Odessa continues to exhibit extreme bias in his editing of current politial events. The graph i question portrays progressive opinion poll resulst relevant to the article . The user can click the graphic to display a higer resolution version of the graph. The information in relation to the article is in continual change and it this graph will also be updated to reflect adidtional polls.The progressive poll graph is teh best way of portraing polling information. Copy of the source data-file and citations are readily available and also publishsed on the Artcile discussion pages. User TAG. Odessa has been removing this information thus denying readers valuable public informtaion within the context of the article which is relevant to the article. We have noted that a number fo other comments that do not coincide with the personal politcial view of the complaintant has also been removed. User Tag.Odessa has also on previous occassions misinterperrated Wikiedia policy in seeking to edit and remove comments relevant to the pubhlished topic.
The Ukrainian Election is scheduled to take place on September 30. the public polling information shoudl be allowed to remain and on conslusion of the election replaced with a more appropiate grpaic shoing teh final election results. the removal of this information would leave Wikipedia open to allegations of polical bias. UkraineToday 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Image is free, is sourced from publicly available data, and usefully shows consistent polling trends. No reason to delete. Jheald 23:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- This image is impossible to update by anybody other than original author. As this is pools for elections in progress - source information is not stable and will be changing. Image will reflecting old information and may become biased. On top of this - line charts like this should be uploaded as SVG or PNG - not GIF (per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format). Additionally seat calculations done by unloader - this is unsourced original research. User:UkraineToday has strong political bias - he used to publish links to his own blog and now host information and images from it on Wikipedia. He has not contributed to any unrelated to politics article. --TAG 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wxia-11alive.gif
- OB, LC, no citations, replaced by Wxia11alive.png — ViperSnake151 01:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Trouble.jpg
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Videmus Omnia Talk 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, hehe. Pavel Vozenilek 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wood.jpg
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Videmus Omnia Talk 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Reggatas.jpg
- - uploaded by Mame Khary (notify | contribs).
- Source says nothing about public domain, uploader long gone. — Picaroon (t) 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete- no reason to believe this is PD. --Abu badali (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Colonial Architecture.jpg
- - uploaded by Mame Khary (notify | contribs).
- Source says nothing about public domain, uploader long gone. — Picaroon (t) 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Natioanl Park of the Langue de Barbarie.jpg
- - uploaded by Mame Khary (notify | contribs).
- Source says nothing about public domain, uploader long gone. — Picaroon (t) 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:StLouisGeo.jpg
- - uploaded by Mame Khary (notify | contribs).
- Source says nothing about public domain, uploader long gone. — Picaroon (t) 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. One 08:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Faidherbeb.jpg
- - uploaded by Mame Khary (notify | contribs).
- Source says nothing about public domain, uploader long gone. — Picaroon (t) 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:L.Barbarie.jpg
- - uploaded by Mame Khary (notify | contribs).
- Source says nothing about public domain, uploader long gone. — Picaroon (t) 02:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Allophilia_Scale_svg.svg
- - uploaded by Michalis Famelis (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Low quality Videmus Omnia Talk 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am the creator of the image. It is not low quality: it is a disaster (my first attempt on SVG), and I should have asked for deletion myself a long time ago. Delete it please. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Speedy per WP:CSD G7 - Tag added to image page - Papa November 1 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Avazhayi-ke-madaram-be-man-amookht.jpg
- Book cover for a book that is barely mentioned in the article. Abu badali (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and add rationale: "Provides visual information about the language the person writes in".
- Delete. Per WP:NONFREE#Images, cover art may only be used in conjunction with significant commentary about the item being depicted. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:OneNightscreenshot.jpg
- Non-free movies screenshot, doens't help on the undertanding of the articles it's used in Abu badali (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Padma.jpg
- Appears to be a publicity shot, possibly from a modeling gig, but user has claimed it is there own work, likely copyright violation — Ejfetters 04:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
- Delete, unless we can establish that this editor is the copyright holder and has the authority to release it to the public domain. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Image on Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 02:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Commons think it should be raised there.Harlowraman 02:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tiffanifaison.jpg
- - uploaded by Thamusemeantfan (notify | contribs).
- Fair use image of a living person replaceable with free use image, WP:FU — Ejfetters 04:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
- Delete. I've already removed the image from the article. This is a clear case. --Abu badali (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Marcel.jpg
- - uploaded by Thamusemeantfan (notify | contribs).
- Fair use image of a living person replaceable with free use image, WP:FU — Ejfetters 05:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:A. Shakespeare 2006.jpg
- - uploaded by Sarah Goldberg (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned. Uploaded by a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user for userspace. — Flyguy649 talk contribs 05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no reason to believe in authorship claim. --Abu badali (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mario.jpg
- - uploaded by A Link to the Past (notify | contribs).
- High resolution picture of Mario taken from nintendo.com. Fails NFCC, doesn't respect commercial opportunities of original, doesn't increase reader understanding. Uploaded over unencyclopedic personal photo by someone else. Probably just delete both — -Nard 10:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to be an entirely appropriate illustration of a fictional character, just as we allow so many comic-book characters to be illustrated. I can't see that this is likely to have any impact at all on the original market role of the original copyrighted media. Jheald 23:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's one thing to use a comic book character, but this is like the publicity shots from NBC.com. This is not the original version, but an enhanced version made for Nintendo's website. Our use detracts from their goal of attracting visitors to their site. -Nard 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The image is said to be a screenshot from a video game. If it's true, I believe it can be used to illustrate the video game character. But if Nard is right that this is an enhanced version (I can't say because I don't own a Nintendo DS), then the source information is wrong, and the image must be deleted. --Abu badali (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's one thing to use a comic book character, but this is like the publicity shots from NBC.com. This is not the original version, but an enhanced version made for Nintendo's website. Our use detracts from their goal of attracting visitors to their site. -Nard 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It's promotional art for the video game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless the following are done:
- Why is the source of the article not on the image description page? This is obviously not taken from a Nintendo DS game - this is official artwork.
- The image needs to be low resolution (should also be cropped when doing so). --- RockMFR 01:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's fixed now.
- I do not know how to alter the image. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that A Link to the Past uploaded this image on top of another, completely unrelated image: [1] [2]. Please avoid doing this in the future.
Perhaps the best solution would be to delete the promotional Mario picture, thus restoring the original. Then the promotional picture could be re-uploaded in low resolution under a different name. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't think I'd be able to make those modifiations. If you or someone else would?
- Also, I uploaded this image over that because I felt that people would expect to find the video game character at that link. I reuploaded the image at Mario2.jpg. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Intentionally uploading an unrelated picture over someone else's is vandalism. -Nard 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reduced resolution and cropped as suggested. Oversized versions deleted. Papa November 08:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Intentionally uploading an unrelated picture over someone else's is vandalism. -Nard 20:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:HedonisBluJeans1.jpg
- - uploaded by BrooklynBiznessGirl (notify | contribs).
- CV - Image is tagged as public domain, but the description says Fair Use. We have no evidence that the uploader is the proper owner, so I suggest deletion so as to err on the side of caution. — cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nicktropolis_bikini_bottom.jpg
- - uploaded by Charlie allnut (notify | contribs).
- Non-free web screenshot not used with any commentary about the page being depicted, thus violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 16:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete None of his images have correct copyrights. I very seriously doubt he is the author of Nicktropolis. Jonjonbt† 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Control_room.jpg
- - uploaded by Charlie allnut (notify | contribs).
- Non-free web screenshot not used with any commentary about the page being depicted, thus violating WP:NFCC #8. Note that this applies only to the July 13, 2007 uploaded version. There is an older version that is actually a PD user-donated image that should be retained. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is my version (the PD one) and I've reverted back to it. I don't know anything about why it was replaced or who replaced it. Regards, Neilius 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Jackrack.jpg
- - uploaded by Deathbunny (notify | contribs).
- TV screenshot of a number of fictional military awards. Although it is used in the character's article in his "awards" section, it's of not much use to the reader since none of the awards are labelled, thus violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep did you read the text accompanying the image? They are in fact labelled, there's links to articles discussing the ribbons in question. It wouldn't kill the reader to click through to see which is which. There's even commentary on the inconsistency in them, such as the pins adding up to 64 years of service. -Nard 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)- Keep The image illustrates the article, it isn't just decoration. There is no way to replace it with a free images, so it is valid fair use. --Tango 21:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, one could in theory build a replica collection of ribbons, they're all PD as works of the federal government. Of course the arrangement itself could be considered copyrighted. -Nard 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep The image is the basis for the section discussion, and allows comparison/verification against the ribbons on the actual medal pages. Jheald 23:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: The section discussion is just a listing, and the image adds no encyclopedic information that isn't already conveyed by the listing. --Abu badali (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the image could easily be replaced with a labelled schematic instead of a fuzzy screenshot. That said, I would prefer if the entire section was deleted, because it lacks secondary sources. Addhoc 17:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete individual ribbons are PD, replaceable by self-made image of ribbons. -Nard 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ZhouXuanCDrelease.jpg
- Album cover only used in an article that doesn't not discusses the album nor the cover. Abu badali (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep First off there is a fairuse rationale provided a long time ago. Secondly the artist is deceased. No one can take more pictures of the artist. Benjwong 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:NONFREE#Images, cover art may only be used with significant commentary about the item being depicted, which is not the case here. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Complain. I am about to file a complain unless someone can explain the inconsistency. It has been claimed by other administrators that images of deceased subjects can be used. The second bracket box in Wikipedia nonfree image guideline clearly states the rules are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense. I already said multiple times that the artist is NO LONGER ALIVE. And the same people keep ignoring my messages. Benjwong 06:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Blue_fine_point_sharpie.JPG
- - uploaded by Drummer070 (notify | contribs).
- Image is out of focus and was replaced in the article with Black_fine_point_sharpie.JPG — DBishop1984 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:JanetJackson Mazur 13972206.jpg
- Image again is a fair use screencap of a performance, replaceable with a free use image, WP:FU — Ejfetters 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:Vakarai_IDP's.jpeg
- - uploaded by Taprobanus (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-free image showing a camp with people displaced during an event, used to illustrate the information that there were people displaced during this incident. It doen't seem to be necessary for the understanding of the topic. Abu badali (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Liberal Tamilnet copy right policy along with the status of refugees whwn they were bombed illustrates the point of the article. Thanks Taprobanus 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The "liberal Tamilnet copy right policy" is not liberal enough to make the images free. So, it must abide to WP:NFCC. The points this image "illustrates" in the article does not need images to be understood. --Abu badali (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Liberal Tamilnet copy right policy along with the status of refugees whwn they were bombed illustrates the point of the article. Thanks Taprobanus 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not necessary to understanding the text. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Padahuthurai_protest.jpg
- - uploaded by Taprobanus (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-free image showing some pople protesting, used to illustrate the information that they protested. It's not necessary for the understanding of the text Abu badali (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. Keep. It shows the manner of the protest, how the priests were taking a leading role, etc. This conveys useful understanding, beyond the mere words. Also in its favour is the relatively liberal reuse policy from TamilNet, even if we cannot class it as fully free. Jheald 23:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- First, we only distinguish between free and non-free. No matter how "liberal" a copyright policy may be, if it's not Free, the image must abide to WP:NFCC (see non-commercial and Wikipedia-only images, for instance). Second, I can't see how this image is necessary for understanding that the priests took a leading role in the protest, or for understanding any other information in the article. --Abu badali (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are many ways priests could take an active role in a protest march. But this image clarifies exactly how they behaved, and how visible they were. That adds understanding which is additional to merely what is conveyed by the words. Jheald 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The roles the priests took on the march can be perfectly explained with words alone. What kind of user would need a graphic to understand that? --Abu badali (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are many ways priests could take an active role in a protest march. But this image clarifies exactly how they behaved, and how visible they were. That adds understanding which is additional to merely what is conveyed by the words. Jheald 13:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- First, we only distinguish between free and non-free. No matter how "liberal" a copyright policy may be, if it's not Free, the image must abide to WP:NFCC (see non-commercial and Wikipedia-only images, for instance). Second, I can't see how this image is necessary for understanding that the priests took a leading role in the protest, or for understanding any other information in the article. --Abu badali (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Jheald Taprobanus 12:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. Keep. It shows the manner of the protest, how the priests were taking a leading role, etc. This conveys useful understanding, beyond the mere words. Also in its favour is the relatively liberal reuse policy from TamilNet, even if we cannot class it as fully free. Jheald 23:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - rationale: "provides visual information about the protest". Carcharoth 16:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- That would be a keep for any image, as any (decent and related) image "provides visual information" - Nabla 15:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. None of the information Jheald cites is in the article text such that an image would be required to understand it. Also, note that free/non-free is a binary state. If it's not free for commercial use and derivative works, then it's non-free. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Jheald Harlowraman 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Perfectly replaceable by text. - Nabla 15:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Padahuthaurai_victims_funeral.jpg
- - uploaded by Taprobanus (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-free image showing a funeral used to illustrate the information that some people died. Abu badali (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Very necessary to illustrate the effect of civil war on civilians along with liberal copy right policy of Tamilnet makes the picture ver valuable to the artcle. Taprobanus 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that a picture of some people carrying coffins is "very necessary" for understanding "the effect of civil war on civilians"? Like if "civil war brings civilian death" can't be understood without such an image? --Abu badali (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes because when people are denying that these people even ever died ? Taprobanus 21:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that a picture of some people carrying coffins is "very necessary" for understanding "the effect of civil war on civilians"? Like if "civil war brings civilian death" can't be understood without such an image? --Abu badali (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Very necessary to illustrate the effect of civil war on civilians along with liberal copy right policy of Tamilnet makes the picture ver valuable to the artcle. Taprobanus 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Nobody is denying that people have died, but it is not Wikipedia's job to prove this point. We cite reliable sources to accomplish that. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Padahuthurai_victim_baby.jpg
- - uploaded by Taprobanus (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-free image of a funeral of a child, used to illustrate the "effect of civil war on civilians". We don't need to use non-free material for that. Abu badali (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Very liberal copy right policy of Tamilnet along with the fact that it illustrates the point made in the article that victims were civilians not combatants as initially claimed makes it vlaubale in the article. Thanks Taprobanus 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- We don't upload non-free material to proof statements. We cite reliable sources for that. --Abu badali (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a conflict related article, nothing can be said for sure, everything is disputed. Fisrt did the massacre happen at all, then did people die at all, then did civilians die at all, then did children die at all ? Everything at all points are disouted. This picture is right under the UN section that talks about children dieing and it assures that it is not just attributed to the UN alone that children did die. Thanks Taprobanus 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- We don't upload non-free material to proof statements. We cite reliable sources for that. --Abu badali (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Very liberal copy right policy of Tamilnet along with the fact that it illustrates the point made in the article that victims were civilians not combatants as initially claimed makes it vlaubale in the article. Thanks Taprobanus 13:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Like above, it is not Wikipedia's job to prove these points. That's what reliable sources are for. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This picture adds value to the article and explains better . Harlowraman 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nichellenicholsuhura.jpg
- Nichellenicholsuhura.jpg obsoleted by UhuraTOS.jpg - old version was of unknown source (not known which episode/film) and had no rationale, replace with image of known source (episode) and included rationale — Ejfetters 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:EnsignC.jpg
- EnsignC.jpg obsoleted by PavelChekov.jpg - old version's color was dark and grainy, had no known source (episode) or rationale, replaced with screencap with better color, source, and rationale — Ejfetters 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:Eddie Paskey.jpg
- - uploaded by Bill Wrigley (notify | contribs).
- Eddie Paskey.jpg obsoleted by LtLeslieTOS.jpg image appears to be a promotional image of unknown source, replaced with screen cap of known source and rationale — Ejfetters 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Image:Downtownmiami.gif
- - uploaded by Comayagua99 (notify | contribs).
- Self-made image with no sources given for information image pertains to is unencyclopedic and original research — Sources are needed to show that those divisions of downtown miami are actually real and not something that was made up on a whim by the uploader. — 72.153.33.156 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC).
- Keep the source for a map should be obvious to anybody. -Nard 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep AGF. If there's a problem, people will complain soon enough. Jheald 23:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- This nomination is people complaining! --Abu badali (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Source(s) for the map needed. Large chunk of "Park West" is what I've always heard called Overtown. Did he/she just make this crap up? ... Miamiboyzinhere 05:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep::Uh...it is exactly called Park West. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This look suspiciously like a derivative work of something else. One, it's remarkably detailed, especially in the unlabelled streets and the inclusion of zip codes. Two, if you were creating a map image for use here, why would you intentionally put in partial street names (look on the left edge where the names get cropped off)? This doesn't pass the smell test to me. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Invisible-pink-unicorn.jpg
- Blank image. Not used, not funny. --- RockMFR 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I believe this has been replaced by Image:Ipu.png. howcheng {chat} 21:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- To quote the U.S. Supreme Court, "First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed". But since this is superceded, delete. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/7c/20070725222922%21Mario.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Mario.jpg&oldid=133185185){kind=link}