Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Moral Panic: attacking??
Rlevse (talk | contribs)
7,963 edits
Line 30: Line 30:
* {{il|Genitalia.jpg}}
* {{il|Genitalia.jpg}}
* {{il|KICON.jpg}}
* {{il|KICON.jpg}}
* {{il|Kogaru1.jpg}}


Images are out of scope or fakes --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] ([[User talk:Niabot|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Images are out of scope or fakes --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] ([[User talk:Niabot|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Line 95: Line 96:
:{{vd}} per Alison and above. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''''' 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
:{{vd}} per Alison and above. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''''' 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
:{{vd}} Images are not in [[COM:SCOPE|scope]], despite weak arguments to the contrary . Being on some user pages on a couple projects does not make them somehow encyclopedic. Additionally, the collection of images makes Commons a laughingstock and reduces its usefulness as a valuable educational project . [[User:Scheaffer Sirls|Scheaffer Sirls]] ([[User talk:Scheaffer Sirls|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
:{{vd}} Images are not in [[COM:SCOPE|scope]], despite weak arguments to the contrary . Being on some user pages on a couple projects does not make them somehow encyclopedic. Additionally, the collection of images makes Commons a laughingstock and reduces its usefulness as a valuable educational project . [[User:Scheaffer Sirls|Scheaffer Sirls]] ([[User talk:Scheaffer Sirls|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
:{{vd}} Per all the deletes above. Note Midnight68 has been indef'd by Arbcom on en.wiki. As I'm voting in the IFD here, I will not take admin action in this case. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
*I'm confused. Assuming these images are, in fact, created by User:Midnight68, how are they not in scope? We often use amateur illustrations to illustrate a particular style of artwork without infringing any professional's copyrights. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
*I'm confused. Assuming these images are, in fact, created by User:Midnight68, how are they not in scope? We often use amateur illustrations to illustrate a particular style of artwork without infringing any professional's copyrights. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
*{{vk}} - Images are in scope, they depict notable traits of what is (for good or worse -the world is not always as we like it) real world pop culture. Describing images of children in underwear as CP is ridicolous -I see no sex act in the images I've seen (and if there's any -I admit I haven't clicked them all) we can limit deletion to those [[w:iff]] there are legal concerns. The images are also clearly not copyvios as clearly attributed to the author, and the author has clearly explained authorship. Most of the delete !votes seem to be based on moral panic and/or on false assumptions (e.g. that the images are "fake" or a copyvio). --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
*{{vk}} - Images are in scope, they depict notable traits of what is (for good or worse -the world is not always as we like it) real world pop culture. Describing images of children in underwear as CP is ridicolous -I see no sex act in the images I've seen (and if there's any -I admit I haven't clicked them all) we can limit deletion to those [[w:iff]] there are legal concerns. The images are also clearly not copyvios as clearly attributed to the author, and the author has clearly explained authorship. Most of the delete !votes seem to be based on moral panic and/or on false assumptions (e.g. that the images are "fake" or a copyvio). --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:20, 7 August 2010

  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Files by User:Midnight68|year=2024|month=May|day=26}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Files by User:Midnight68|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Midnight68}} at the end of today's log.

Files by User:Midnight68

All this image could make us legal problems, since they might fall under child pornography. The artist User:Midnight68 is well unknown, but tried to force this images inside articles, even if some are easily to be found fakes. He claims he is an artist of dōjinshi, but the provided cover File:Ikusa.jpg shows an ISBN number. Most dōjinshi don't have an ISBN and in this case it is even an illegal ISBN, since it is an EAN. On the other hand this artist got already banned from communities like DeviantArt. (Found it out, as i searched for other images of this kind, the last time some of his images where deleted).

Since i think that this images are out of scope, they should be deleted.

Some more:

Images are out of scope or fakes --Niabot (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Vandalism. Luispihormiguero (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The images feel like copyvios, and the language on the description page sounds like trolling. --Carnildo (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. The first few images seem obviously associated with TG Comics/Kogaru Diaries. These two companies are at least mentioned by one fan in the same breath.[1] The explanation that "They were initially drawn in pencil, then rendered up in photoshop to give the appearance of screencaps or games CGs" would seriously strain my credulity even if the company was not known to exist. Drawing a Web site in pencil sounds like the kind of stupid thing an artist would get famous for. I think that Midnight68 owes Wikimedia either a) a valid OTRS ticket sent from one of the companies mentioned, or b) an artwork in the same fashion lampooning some admin, censorious practice, etc. at Wikipedia, with made-up logos and labels and web site detail, to prove his skill...
P.S. the existence of these companies demonstrates we should not have to worry about "obscenity" issues, at least with the first few I looked at - first, because I'm not seeing news about prosecutions for people importing their product, and second, because their existence documents that the images have artistic and educational significance. While anything can theoretically be prosecuted for obscenity, compare this document about investigations by the "real NCIS" (i.e. DCIS) I stumbled across recently.[2] The federal government apparently is not prosecuting even apparently genuine child pornography unless it is a child that NCMEC can identify, but unfortunately, it doesn't sound like they're making an effort to find such unknown children by more conventional means of investigation from such evidence. Wnt (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Midnight68 here. I'd like to clear up the misunderstanding about these files.

All of these images are my own original work. They were initially drawn in pencil, then rendered up in photoshop to give the appearance of screencaps or games CGs. As I created all of them myself, There is NO copyright violation. Following normal protocols, I have supplied accurate source information and released these images under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. In short, they are perfectly legitimate.

All this image could make us legal problems, since they might fall under child pornography.

No. Under US law, these images are NOT child pornography. An image can only be judged CP if it is photographic and involves an actual child. These are simply drawn images and do not constitute any legal violation under United States Law. They may be considered lolicon, ecchi or hentai, but none of these are illegal in the US, where Commons' servers are located. In addition, I would like to direct your attention to this page, where it is clearly stated that Commons is not censored.

The artist User:Midnight68... tried to force this images inside articles.

That is a gross exaggeration. I have uploaded a total of 28 pictures to Commons. Of that number, I have only posted 4 myself, and then only to articles lacking suitable illustrations. The remaining 24 have been made available to Wikimedia Commons for general use (ie, in case anyone else wants/needs to use them). Other than that, the artwork only appears on my userpages. Under wikimedia policy, users are permitted to list their contributions on their userpages.

I will also point out that several users on es.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia have posted my artwork in various articles and employed them to make userboxes. This is a clear demonstration that the artwork is within scope and useful to the international Wikipedia community. If you don't believe me, here is a list:

Files used on es.wikipedia.org:

Files used on ru.wikipedia.org:

If these people are using my artwork to illustrate articles and create userboxes, then I have the same right.

In addition to all of this, my contributions to en.wikipedia have been accepted by the general community. It seems that only a few people here object to my contributions, based on a mistaken belief that they are copyright violations. Well, they are not. I am stating for the record that everything I've uploaded to Commons is my own artwork. I am the creator of these images and have contributed them for general use under the terms of the license. They should not be deleted, because they were all submitted in good faith and NONE of them are fakes.

Midnight68 (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some answers from me, regarding your implications:
I have supplied accurate source information
That may be right, but the image descriptions are misleading. You provided something that looks like the cover of an dōjinshi, but only some dōjinshi have an ISBN and your ISBN is even faulty. That shows me that this image and its description is a simple fake. Does not make your trustworthy in my eyes. Also the 60th animations with colored subtitles. Are you kidding us?
Under US law, this image is NOT considered child pornography. An image can only be judged CP if it is photographic and involves an actual child.
That is plain wrong, since the US law does not divide between fictional drawings or actual photographs. Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States
It may be considered lolicon, ...
Thats right, and that is exactly why it may be ruled as illegal.
Of that number, I have only posted 4 myself, and then only to articles lacking suitable illustrations.
I call this spamming: [3]
Anyway i can't find a good use for the images listed inside this deletion request. It are not all your images, since some where kept, some where deleted previously (a year ago or so). The legal status is questionable and the images used shouldn't be listed by this request. I came to the conclusion that this images are either out of scope, illegal or even fakes, regardless if you are the author or commons is not censored. --Niabot (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Per above. Wknight94 talk 14:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per all of the above. At best, they're of extremely limited encyclopedic use, at worst, they're CP. Just kill with fire already - Alison ❤ 12:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. On the contrary. The main images are intended to illustrate terms such as panchira, lolicon, ecchi, hentai, eroge etc, which places them entirely within scope due to educational purpose. Regarding the userbox icons, they have been uploaded under section 3.4.2 of the Project Scope:
"by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed."
Midnight68 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Alison and above. --JN466 14:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Images are not in scope, despite weak arguments to the contrary . Being on some user pages on a couple projects does not make them somehow encyclopedic. Additionally, the collection of images makes Commons a laughingstock and reduces its usefulness as a valuable educational project . Scheaffer Sirls (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Per all the deletes above. Note Midnight68 has been indef'd by Arbcom on en.wiki. As I'm voting in the IFD here, I will not take admin action in this case. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Assuming these images are, in fact, created by User:Midnight68, how are they not in scope? We often use amateur illustrations to illustrate a particular style of artwork without infringing any professional's copyrights. Powers (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Images are in scope, they depict notable traits of what is (for good or worse -the world is not always as we like it) real world pop culture. Describing images of children in underwear as CP is ridicolous -I see no sex act in the images I've seen (and if there's any -I admit I haven't clicked them all) we can limit deletion to those w:iff there are legal concerns. The images are also clearly not copyvios as clearly attributed to the author, and the author has clearly explained authorship. Most of the delete !votes seem to be based on moral panic and/or on false assumptions (e.g. that the images are "fake" or a copyvio). --Cyclopia (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spanking, cross-dressing a boy in stockings and suspenders, images of clearly drawn pre-pubescent genitalia are not sexual? And I suppose the drawing of a medical instrument being used to spread a pre-pubescent female vagina is for educational purposes and useful for medical students. --For God's sake keep out of it (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The spanking gif is intended to illustrate terms such as panchira, lolicon and anime. It can also be used in relation to Gif Animation and Erotic Spanking.
The cross dressing image is intended to illustrate articles relating to fetishes, and sexual fantasy.
Regarding the 'vagina' image, there are similar files listed under the categories 'Vagina' and 'Gynecology'. Anyway, why do you assume it depicts a prepubescent female? Adult women are known to shave their gentalia.
All of these images are within scope.
Midnight68 (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you speak up, please? I can't hear you over the noise of the over 9,000 fapping inclusionists here - Alison ❤ 00:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was being sarcastic.
Midnight68 (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of reply is neither useful nor warranted, Alison. Please refrain from impugning the motives of your fellow editors. Powers (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think it's both. YHBT, y'alls ^_^ - Alison ❤ 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reply

Also the 60s animations with colored subtitles. Are you kidding us?

No, I'm not kidding you. I drew all of them myself, starting with pen and ink sketches, and rendering them up photoshop in greyscale. I used various filters to give them a "grainy apppearance". I then added text to make them resemble fansubs. They may look like screencaps, but they aren't. I'm a university-trained artist with a background in computer graphics. I know how to do this kind of thing.

That is plain wrong, since the US law does not divide between fictional drawings or actual photographs.

You must have misread the article.

"The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ruled that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was facially invalid in prohibiting virtual or cartoon child pornography. "

In simple English it means that drawn images (such as lolicon) are protected by the US Constitution as free speech. In addition, The Supreme Court itself said that the PROTECT Act of 2003 was unconstitutional. This means that drawn images CANNOT be considered CP.

I call this spamming.

The article required an illustration which shows what a doujinshi looks like. File:Ikusa.jpg does that, and there are no copyright problems, because I granted my permission for its use (incidentally, after you removed that image from the article, I did not try to repost it, so I don't understand why you're so angry about it).

It is not spam and it's not self-promotion. Wikimedia policy requires that all files include attribution. All of your images carry a link to your userpage, Niabot, but that doesn't make it self-promotion. If you have the right to contribute artwork to this community, then so do I. If you have the right to have your work attributed to you, then so do I. If you have the right to post examples of your work on your userpage then so do I.

I came to the conclusion that this images are either out of scope, illegal or even fakes, regardless if you are the author.

1. They are not illegal under US law. They are protected by the First Amendment.

2. They are not out of scope, as other users have employed them in articles and userboxes.

3. I am the author of the work, therefore they are not fake, they are original.

You're arguing that most of my contributions should be deleted because of some trivial detail; ie; whether doujinshi carry fake barcodes. Well, as I said - some do. I will add that particular piece of information to the description, then you will have nothing to complain about.

BTW: Whatever happened on DeviantART is in the past, and is therefore irrelevant to this site. I don't want to cause trouble, I just want to contribute work to the community - same as everybody else.

Midnight68 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you stated that you faked the images: "I drew all of them myself, starting with pen and ink sketches, and rendering them up photoshop in greyscale. I used various filters to give them a "grainy apppearance". I then added text to make them resemble fansubs." But you still insist that they are not fakes and anime from the 60th? Big bullshit.
"They are not illegal under US law. They are protected by the First Amendment." That is wrong, since the pictures might not fall under freedom of speech, what is also stated inside the same decision. (read the full text, not that cited in wp)
"They are not out of scope, as other users have employed them in articles and userboxes." Userboxes do not have to be offending nor does this kind of usage imply that the images are in scope.
"I don't want to cause trouble,..." Your sure will. --Niabot (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a language problem here, Niabot, because the descriptions don't say they are real 60s screencaps. It clearly says "Artwork by user Midnight68, uploaded with full permission of the artist." The source is given as own work and the Author as Midnight68.

A native English speaker would understand this perfectly: it's an amateur picture meant to illustrate certain visual characteristics of early 60s animation.

Userboxes do not have to be offending nor does this kind of usage imply that the images are in scope.

If users are posting my images in bonafide articles, then they certainly are in scope. As for the userboxes, if other people are using my artwork on their userpages, then I have exactly the same right. BTW: not everybody finds this or this offensive. And neither of them would be considered "obscene" under US law.

That is wrong, since the pictures might not fall under freedom of speech, what is also stated inside the same decision.

Again, I think there's a language problem here. NO drawn image is classified as CP in the United States, not even the most hardcore hentai. That's the plain truth, Niabot.

You sure will (make trouble).

I'm not the one who's making spurious deletion claims.

Midnight68 (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I can. In return, I ask that the admin remove all of the deletion notices from my artwork.

Legal status

As far as I can tell, both sides are wrong with regard to the legal status of these images. To the best of my knowlege (I am not a lawyer), there are two ways for something to be considered child pornography in the US:

  1. It is a photograph, depicting an actual minor, that is pornographic.
  2. It is a depiction of any sort, depicting an apparent minor, that is both pornographic and obscene.

#2 brings in the Miller Test definition of obscenity, and under the Miller Test, anything within scope for Commons is not obscene. --Carnildo (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the arguments are that the pictures are not within the scope. -jkb- (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Number of files from this DR are legitimately in use, so out of scope argument is dubious. Trycatch (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see some images are in use in user boxes (where is the "scope of Wikipedia here??), some others has been added by the user Midnight68 himself. Ehm... -jkb- (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I uploaded five small images for use on my personal Commons userpage. As far as I can see, this is permitted under section 3.4.2 of the Project Scope:
"by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed."
I assume that "a small number of images" would include the five icons in my userboxes. That places them within the Project Scope. In addition, because other wikipedians have used my images for their userboxes, these icons may be employed by users with similar interests. Part of the site's mission is to provide "a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation." Subsequently, the userbox icons could be a resource for wikipedia users in general.
Midnight68 (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made mistake -- File:Akibachan5a.jpg and File:Kogaru1.jpg by the same user wasn't nominated. But still -- some very similar pictures are in use, these files have been uploaded just a few days ago, it needs some time to find use for them. Trycatch (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
quote: "it needs some time to find use for them"... Sorry, do we upload images and then we are looking for the udse??? I thought we upload images because we have / could have use for them. What is the scope of the project - that's the question... -jkb- (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably there is realistic use for some of these images -- similar to use of File:Akibachan5a.jpg and File:Kogaru1.jpg -- i.e. in articles like Hentai, Lolicon, Panchira, etc. Some probably out of scope -- fake Internet Archive screenshot, for example. It needs some case by case analysis. Trycatch (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "I thought we upload images because we have / could have use for them. What is the scope of the project - that's the question..."
All of my images could have a legitimate use in articles relating to lolicon, hentai, panchira, ecchi or ero-games, to illustrate the visual characteristics of these terms (educational value). They could also potentially be used on other Wikimedia sites such as Wikionary or Wikiversity (respository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation). Surely that's the whole point of housing images on Commons: so that people can use them whenever they need to.
Midnight68 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you in some way to prove that these files have been created by you? I.e. provide preliminary sketches, intermediate files or something?

Yes, of course I can. In return, I ask that the admin remove all of the deletion notices from my artwork.

Number of files from this DR are legitimately in use, so out of scope argument is dubious.

Thank you. None of my work is out of scope, no matter what Niabot says.

It is "a depiction of any sort", depicting "an apparent minor", that is both "pornographic" and "obscene".

Child pornography and obscenity are two completely different areas. The definition of CP is very specific, as it involves photographic depictions of actual children. Obscenity is a much broader term - it can refer to practically any media (art, literature, music, photography etc) and is not confined to the depiction of minors. The so-called Miller Test complicates matters further, as under US law, an image which is considered obscene in one state might not be considered obscene in another. Subsequently, under the Miller Test, some of Niabot's pictures might be considered obscene in highly conservative states.

To put it another way, Commons is FULL of images which might fail the Miller Test - gynacological photos, nudes, mutilations, racially sensitive images etc. All of these could potentially be considered obscene, but we don't remove them on that basis.

However, as -jbk- points outs, all of this is beside the point. The complaint made against my work was that the images are "out of scope or fake". This complaint is completely wrong.

First, my artwork is NOT out of scope, as it is intended to illustrate certain visual aspects of anime and manga (lolicon, hentai, ecchi etc). In addition, as Trycatch says, a number of these images are legitimately in use on various wikipedia projects - that in itself proves that the art is being used within the scope of Commons policy.

Second, NONE of my images are fake or misleading. The descriptions carry accurate source information and are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0. All of them state that they are my original artwork; none of them claim to be real screencaps or professional games CG. Most importantly NONE of them violate copyright in any way.

As they are in scope and are not fakes, they conform to Commons policy and therefore should not be deleted.

Midnight68 (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'd like to clarify a few points you raised in your reply, Wtn.

The first few images seem obviously associated with TG Comics/Kogaru Diaries.

With only one exception, the images I posted to TGcomics.com had been previously released under GFDL on various other Wiki-related projects (SpankingArt Wiki, Animanga Wiki, etc). As I understand Commons policy, if I originally released my work under GFDL, OTRS is not required from any other website where my artwork has appeared.

RE: "Kogaru Diaries" - Kogaru Diaries is not a company. It's just me, playing around on my private wiki. Again, all of the artwork posted there is mine, and was originally released under GDFL. Practically everything I've posted online has been licensed under Creative Commons.

Drawing a Web site in pencil sounds like the kind of stupid thing an artist would get famous for.

Actually, it's not unusual for a web designer to sketch a site's layout in pencil beforehand, especially if they have a background in graphic art. I know this for a fact, because I used to teach in an art college back in my home country. I'm not a complete novice when it comes to this kind of thing.

I assume that you're talking about this image. Well, it wasn't too difficult to create in photoshop. All it required was text and images - both of which I created myself. And once again, all of the pictures used in that file were originally released under GFDL.

The explanation that "They were initially drawn in pencil, then rendered up in photoshop to give the appearance of screencaps or games CGs" would seriously strain my credulity...

As stated above, I can submit some preliminary sketches to prove that I'm the author of all of the images in my gallery. In fact, I'd be VERY HAPPY to post my sketches if the admin agrees to remove all of the deletion requests from my artwork.

Midnight68 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a pencil sketch of one or two of the artworks could be persuasive, provided that it is of high resolution and can clearly be compared, in fine detail, to the previously submitted artwork. While I don't think anyone can promise to drop the deletion in response to as yet unseen evidence, I do think that with such new evidence it would be fair to strikethrough the preceding deletion votes and start over with a new poll. Wnt (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that the images marked up with TG Comics information may still be problematic, because your "prior GFDL" doesn't include their content. Wnt (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I would find the pre-1960s-TV-filter version of the "screenshots" to be fascinating. Especially if it turned out to be higher resolution. Powers (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moral Panic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coppertone_girl WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment See Wikia user TGcomix. It's nice he's finally found a home here and there. 83.169.33.85 22:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • LOL ^_^

Hi. My name is Chance Blacktown. You might remember me being banned from such crapshit sites as DeviantTART, Youtube, 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica and countless others. The reason why I was banned was because I told the truth and didn't give a fuck what anyone else thought. Well, none of that matters now, because I'm making a fresh start here on Uncyclopedia Failcyclopedia Hentai Foundry Illogicopedia Animanga Wiki. My main objective is to prove that lolicon is one of the defining elements of Japanese animation. As any intelligent person is already aware, anime is loaded with panchira and fanservice - visual conventions which set the artform apart from the far inferior American variant. Although this is common knowledge to any dedicated otaku, those brainless shitbags at Wikipedia are too fucking ghey to admit the truth. Subsequently, I've decided to post my articles here rather than waste any more time on those ignorant faggots. If they can't even see that lolicon is the most sophisticated artform of the 21st century, they can go fuck themselves with a rusty chainsaw.

— TGcomix aka Midnight68, in: (sauce)
So Alison, are you saying that my images should be deleted because I made a joke on another site last year? The issue at hand is whether my images here are within scope. If Commons has a policy against making jokes offsite, please let me know the details.
Midnight68 (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make a bunch of 'jokes' on ED too, yeah? Dude, you're trolling these good people here. Sadly (for them), they're not getting the joke ;) Party on - Alison ❤ 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've never said a bad word about Wikimedia Commons, and I haven't attacked anybody here. I've certainly never said anything bad about you.
Midnight68 (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about 'attacking' anyone? O_o - Alison ❤ 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_by_User:Midnight68&oldid=42332891"