geni wrote:
On 10/17/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
You, we don't. Commons routinely deletes things which are being used as "original research". Please stop your trolling.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Stroudwater_Canal_Bridge.JPG
The caption is original reaseach (it is also wrong but that is do to someone removeing so called POV from the original)
How so?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata01.jpg
original research
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pulsatrix_perspicillata.jpg
original reasearch
How so? And please note that you're accusing an en: Arbitrator of "original research", so you'd better be damned sure you want to make that claim.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Toepfe_fcm.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Herrenchiemsee.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Reichsburg_Cochem_9.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Arnold101.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Taxidermied_grey_fox_face.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:U-Bahnhof_Hohenzollernplatz.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NewZealandCadetCorps.JPG
original reasearch
You're wrong, as usual. "Primary source image" isn't the same as "original research". An example of something that /is/ "original research" and was deleted as such is
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Img052.jpg
I'll ask you again, for the second time, to stop your trolling, or, as you call it, "rules lawyering". If you're so proud of being a rules lawyer, you'd better remember that the lawyers will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. And believe me, the revolution is coming sooner than you think.