< December 28	December 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Kings Dominion logo 2007-2011.png Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to PNG file. Salavat (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted by multiple users per G3. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-made poster Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t have the fine print as seen in real movie posters like this one. Would that make it obvious enough for G3? LaundryPizza03 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt the public library holds the copyright to everything a newspaper produced. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless someone comes forth that the Petoskey Public Library owns and licensed the photos of the Petoskey News, this should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with no obvious value. Salavat (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned with questionable licensing. The license is given on the subject's site, not by the photographer, and it's unclear whether the photographer released it under that license. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned with questionable licensing. Salavat (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of the tower itself is PD. That much is agreed upon. But the image itself is dual licensed. The photograph holds its own copyright license and we would need to know that that was also correctly released. The image itself was originally uploaded to Commons by Skid22 but the EXIF data indicates that it came from Facebook. A directly link to the image in question either here or through OTRS (which I'd be able to process) would be appreciated for confirmatory purposes. Majora (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I just uploaded it from Commons since it was listed for deletion for reasons other than those pointed out by you and that I was not aware of. Anyway, I fear I am not able to trace back the origin of the picture. It appears to be everywhere on the net. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Don't worry about it. FOP and country specific laws can get crazy once you fall down that rabbit hole. I tried to trace it back too before putting it here and I wasn't able to. For precautionary reasons if it can be verified I don't think we can keep it. --Majora (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: maybe it came from here? https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=581773498613300&id=153904631400191 This is the official Facebook page (in italian) of the Municipality of Milan. But I have no idea of which kind of licence is involved here.

Hmm. Well if that is the case then I'm afraid we definitely can't keep it. There is no release on the image. And the only Italian governmental works that are auto PD are edicts. Images that don't have an explicit release default to an "all rights reserved" type license. This is for the photograph itself not the building design which is PD in the US. Both licenses have to be taken into account. --Majora (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: reduce file size. Opencooper, consensus here is clear. The application of the media file policy in these instances, and in its application in a general sense, is more restrictive than your liking. You don't have to agree with it, but you must still abide by it. Circumventing this consensus, both in the past and the future, is not helpful and simply disruptive. It's time to accept it and move on. ℯ xplicit 01:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also

These images are above the NFCC guideline, and the uploader is objecting to a small reduction to meet the guideline. As the guideline says You also may wish to add the ((non-free no reduce)) template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this. There is nothing in the FUR to support the need for an oversized image - the image is only used in the infobox (at a much smaller size than the image page), with no critical commentary in the article that necessitates the use of an oversized image. A standard reduction to meet the guideline would reduce the images to a size that is still in excess of the actual size used in the article. I am therefore looking for a consensus to either reduce or keep - this is effectivly an extension of a previous discussion - see Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_December_2#File:Kobayashi_ga_Kawai_Sugite_Tsurai_v1_cover.jpg. Pinging interested parties from previous discussion @BU Rob13, Begoon, Whpq, and Fastily: Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce all in the absence of a rationale to keep them larger. Further, I think this is becoming a behavioral issue if an editor is contesting literally every image size reduction. I'd recommend taking this to ANI. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The behavioral issue is on the other side considering they're making mass edits that have been shown to be controversial and other editors agreed with me in the previous discussion. They've also been edit warring, such as on File:Tokyo Love Story v1 cover.jpg, File:Trash Market cover.jpg, and File:GE - Good Ending v1 cover.jpg. A rationale is not needed since not even one of them is excessively large that it would warrant one. Opencooper (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close As has been mentioned in the previous discussion, 100,00 pixels is only a recommendation. In fact, the actual Non-free content policy states that "Low- rather than high-resolution" is necessary, while the Non-free content guideline even states in the first line:
There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce.
It's only oversized by your own arbitrary standards. Fair use only requires that the image not be large enough to harm commercial use by the original copyright holder. This image is nowhere close to the 300dpi needed for printing, or even the 2MP Commons requires for featured images. This is just an overzealous crusade by the nominator to split hairs and reduce image quality such has been done on this file, where the line art is illegible and faces obscured, both important aspects of an infobox image that has to illustrate characters, demonstrate artstyle, and be recognizable. The image is already small enough to meet fair use, even Wikipedia's more strict non-free content recommendations. Like the uploader states, it's only a difference of 50 pixels, which is very minor compared to images 1,000 pixels wide or any other obvious case needing reduction. It's more important that we understand the spirit of the topic rather than the letter, and this upload is small by any qualitative rather than quantitative metric. This response is already getting long, so for reasons why lack of critical commentary or use only at smaller size in the infobox are dubious reasons, please see the previous discussion.
This nomination should be procedural closed since it is contrary to guideline and each image needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. This mass nomination is just an extension of RonJones' edit warring and harassment of me. Let me repeat, you can't mass-nominate a bunch of images to create a sham consensus that contravenes the actual applicable guideline; if you don't like the guideline, change it. Mass nomination is disruptive and this is clearly RonJones' attempt to get even since i dared contest his edits as an admin. Opencooper (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce all: Actually the NFC guideline says that all images should be as large as they need to be and no more. Could it work just as well if it was 50 pixels smaller? Of course. So that is the size you should go with. --Majora (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Majora: So how do you know that all these images are as large as they need to be? Did you examine all 49 of them individually and argue each on their own merits? By your own logic this is an inappropriate nomination. Why is 250px "as large as they need to be"? There's no guideline stating that. Opencooper (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I look at all of them? Of course I did. Don't assume I didn't just because there is a lot of them. It is very clear to met that they can all be reduced without losing any information about them. Ergo, reduction fits within the non-free content guideline. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So where are your arguments for each individual one? You can't just say "they all can be reduced" without actually reducing and checking them all. Each individual upload has its own factors like line variation, character size, important elements, that a mass nomination doesn't consider. Opencooper (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for each individual one would still be reduce. If you want to make a whole lot of disruption to this page then feel free to split them all into individual sections. I'll put the same comment in all of them. --Majora (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so you agree that this should be a procedural close. Thanks. And wow, no need to be so WP:POINTY. Opencooper (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in people's mouths. It makes your argument incredibly weak. --Majora (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that's not what you said, then you're being inconsistent with yourself. Read over what you wrote. Then again, can't expect level-headedness from someone who wrote "I'll put the same comment in all of them". Quite disruptive of you. Opencooper (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've striked out File:Vincent Canby portrait.jpg from this nomination. A mass-nomination of images is already quite frivolous and disingenuous, but sneaking in a picture of a human amongst a bunch of manga covers is quite sly considering it's not the only picture of a human I've uploaded at 300px. These all should be considered on their own merits but this one is especially flagrant. Opencooper (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I’ve unstruck it. The image fits the overarching theme of the nomination which is “Opencooper pointedly reverting normal reductions in non-free image size”. It is your job to argue why they cannot be smaller, not be other way around, according to the guideline. You may not arbitrarily remove images from the list to try to disrupt the FFD and require more work of other editors. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - These aren't "normal reductions", these are RonJones overzealously crusading over 50px and making mass edits that were proven controversial. Nice try painting it otherwise though. Opencooper (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where were they proven controversial? I'm not sure I've seen that, I do know I've had plenty of "thank notifications" after tagging oversize images. I also note that the uploader is keen to always quote one part of the guideline, while ignoring the rest of it where it states
      You also may wish to add the ((non-free no reduce)) template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this.
      . Had he used the proscribed template and reasoning, then I would have left those images alone, instead he added a ((nobots)) template (which has no visible banner), I think to try to disrupt the reduction process. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - In the previous discussion as well as with me disputing it. That means it controversial. Words aren't hard. And my images aren't oversized so i don't need that template. Sorry that you're so small-minded that you only see a number and can't actually see the rest of the whole guideline which I've quoted for you numerous times. And I see, so it was retribution as I guessed, thanks for admitting it. I added the nobots template because you would just hit-and-run my uploads before I could even dispute it, and I'm tired of indiscriminate bots and mass-edits to policy like you've been doing. Wikipedia is crawling with people who can't actually think for themselves or use nuance these days, especially admins. Sure you would "have left them alone", like you ego would allow. Opencooper (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There are 833 images with that template, and I have no plans to tag any of them. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since I was pinged, I'll comment. I agree that, if these images are to be kept in a larger size than our well established norm, they need a convincing reason in the rationale. The "smaller use in infobox" argument, however, is something of a red herring, since thumbnail size could be set to 400px in user preferences, larger than these images' native size(s), resulting in full-size article display. Possibly we need to look at clarifying policy in this area. Certainly, though, this is pointy behaviour from Opencooper - having had this discussion previously their next step should have been to discuss policy in the appropriate place, not edit war over over a bunch of images. In this, I agree with Rob that there would be value in discussing the conduct aspect at ANI. Opencooper's conduct, and aspersions, in this, and the previous discussion is not conducive to a collaborative environment. A few minutes reading WP:BLUDGEON might be of value, too. As things stand at present, my position would be Reduce all. Any desired exceptions would need a convincing rationale added to the FUR (which could then be accepted or disputed...) -- Begoon 00:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Editors may also view User_talk:Ronhjones#An_appeal where he asked (as he has before) that he has a hidden category for his images so he can have them at the size he wants. I do not see why one editor's images should be different from all other editors. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce all. per above. Uploader also seems to be suffering from a serious case of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:IDHT. -FASTILY 20:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Opencooper has now made a series of edits like this: [1] to these files: "((non-free no reduce))". Leaving aside the built-in pointy aspersion in the hidden comments, this in no way addresses the issue, since, from the guideline, and already quoted above: "...this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this." No such rationale/explanation has been provided for the files I spot-checked. -- Begoon 01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Frankly it doesn't really matter. Since it is clear that the consensus is to reduce them. Opencooper is just going to have to live with that. If they continue to go against consensus, and if they continue to act in this extremely uncooperative manner, then ANI awaits. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I entirely agree. It does surprise me, though, that someone who has edited as long as they have, and must have seen situations like this pan out many times, seems to imagine that this kind of disruption will get them what they want, rather than just potentially getting them sanctioned. -- Begoon 02:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Begoon:, weren't you calling me a "pest" in the last discussion? You should hardly be talking about conduct issues when you yourself attack editors who are working in good faith. Opencooper (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora and Begoon: That was per RonJones own guidance. Notice the template was created by them. I also was in dialogue with them about it on their talk page. If you pay attention, they mention it on this page as well. They told me to do this to stop their own mass-editing. I'm not the one being disruptive here. Opencooper (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there seems to be a lot of attempts at deflection from the subject by talking about my so-called "disruption". I get that RonJones is an admin, so he automatically gets worshipped and you all will follow along with whatever he says, but anyone who actually looks at the situation will see that I've been the target of a harassment campaign by said user (interesting coincidence that both BU Rob13 and Fastily are admins, and that discussions on Wikipedia are also closed by admins... I'm sure RonJones is quite active in the admin IRC). First they tagged a few of my images and I let it go, because no big deal. Then they mass-tagged a ton more and I disputed it on their talk page. No amounts of quoting from the actual guideline would get them to budge because I dared to insinuate that he could be wrong or that his mass-editing is very disruptive, and that reducing images at this size is being WP:POINTY, an accessibility issue, and so many other problems. They furthered this harassment by edit warring with me (evidence provided above), which you all conveniently don't mention when talking about behavior. Finally, they mass-nominated a ton of my uploads which is extremely disruptive and contrary to policy that discusses each image's size at its own requirements (notice how User:Majora in their eagerness to back up RonJones blatantly goes against guideline by saying all images could be reduced to the same size). This is why I feel attacked and then you all ganged up on my further. I tried personally pleading on RonJones talk page, but they instead twisted that as me wanting some exception when I just want them to stop harassing me. When that didn't work, I tried again and followed their instructions to place a template on each page, but then his fanclub sees that as me trying to disrupt more. I'm just trying to do what I can so I can go back to editing instead of wasting time on this.

Let me repeat, I feel attacked. Instead of trying to sympathize with me or follow guideline, I get ganged up on. Of course I'm going to get testy. I tried to even follow what the users recommend and that gets contorted as me being disruptive. I've noticed this type of behavior time and time again at venues like AfD, ANI, and more. These gang tactics are exactly why so many people are turned off from Wikipedia and why so many leave. You all create this insurmountable barrier of bureaucracy and don't follow common sense. None of the arguments in this thread were along the tenets of fair use nor Wikipedia's own fair use guidelines. it's just a bunch of bullying. This is why I feel attacked. Instead of wondering why an editor of four years, with numerous articles created, thousands of edits, a Featured Picture on Commons, and more. would behave this way, you all insinuate on my character instead of assuming good faith or seeing my attempts at ameliorating the situation.

These images are nowhere close to the 300dpi needed for printing, or even the 2MP needed for Commons. It's merely an overzealous crusade. By no one's definition would these be considered "high resolution" so that they could infringe on the publisher's rights. it's clear this is a long-term crusade against me to drive me off of this project, and let me tell you, it's working. I never once interfered with RonJones other mass editing despite them violating the guidelines (which is why I placed the nobots template), nor did I bring them to ANI for their behavior, though we all know people get away with a lot worse on Wikipedia, especially admins. I am the victim here. Lastly, I tried to stop commenting here to let things cool down so I could apologize for my conduct, but then you all started the whipping anew, despite me trying to personally fix things with RonJones. I care a lot about this project, which is why I don't appreciate non-content creators like RonJones creating petty roadblocks for other people to deal with and these attacks on my character, and long-term harassment (they've been slowly tagging my uploads to see how far they could push me). Pinging involved parties: @Ronhjones and BU Rob13: as well. Opencooper (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've actually interacted with RonJones before. I do image maintenance for literally hours every single day, here and on Commons. I'm only eager to enforce our non-free content policy that every other editor has to follow. Stop playing the victim. It doesn't work and I really don't care. At all. RonJones is enforcing the non-free content policy. Period. I certainly don't "worship" him just because he is an admin. I hate plenty of admins. And this is Files for discussion anyways. It is a place for second opinions. It is not like the images are going to be deleted. You can either deal with the fact that these images can, and will, be reduced back down in size or not but you aren't going to get sympathy out of me. And certainly not for misrepresenting me when I haven't interacted with you before either. --Majora (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Majora: Like I explained, it's also about harassment, not just the images. And why are you so eager to enforce something you don't even understand? The guideline literally says "There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content". These accusations of "playing the victim" are exactly the type of tactics I'm talking about. Opencooper (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger". You've never provided rationale for why your images should be larger than 0.1 megapixels. If you believe you are being harassed, despite the fact that you've been treated no different than any other person uploading larger-than-usual non-free images and that Ronhjones has been resizing images from many editors other than yourself, you can start a thread at WP:ANI about it. Before you do that, I encourage you to read WP:BOOMERANG. I suspect it will apply. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: So how is does it make sense to mass nominate these images if "images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful" (somehow you all think a photograph has the same attributes as a comic cover and can be resized the same, when even within comic covers there's a huge variation in line width, character faces, and so much more)? Your own logic doesn't make sense. How come the 260 pixels that RonJones chooses isn't too large? And again, I never interfered with their edits on other people's files, they're the ones who started edit warring. Opencooper (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13, Begoon, and Majora: I'm still waiting for you all to chide RonJones on his edit warring since you were all so righteous about ganging up on me before about behavior. Now you're all suddenly mum, huh? Really reveals your true allegiances, cuz everyone knows admins aren't possibly capable of harassment or bad conduct. Opencooper (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opencooper - please don't continue to ping me to this discussion. It's on my watchlist, and if I have anything to add to what I have already said then I will do so. Thank you. -- Begoon 00:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon: You received a notification due to the MediaWiki software noting that your username was mentioned. This is due to a call to action specifically mentioning your username that you might miss amidst a watchlist of hundreds of pages that most active users have. I am also making sure that everyone involved in this discussion is aware of developments since you all accused me before of trying to circumvent consensus earlier. If you don't want to receive notifications for username mentions, you may change this in your preferences. I have included a wikilink to that page for your convenience, thanks. Opencooper (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I'm well aware of how the notification system works. Since you have pointedly ignored my polite request not to trigger unnecessary notifications to me, to a discussion I am watching, by pinging me again, I have added your username to the (previously empty) list of usernames from whom notifications are muted. I will still see additions to this discussion, and will respond if I feel the need. Please reconsider your course in general. I entered the first discussion with an amount of sympathy for your position (but not your methods). You have completely eroded that, and the string of pointy little actions like this to piss people off is not likely to end well for you. -- Begoon 02:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just can't win with you guys. First you accuse me of trying to sneakily circumvent consensus (hence the resulting pings). When I explained that was per RonJones instructions, you then proceed to criticize my conduct. When I explained that as well, you all suddenly go silent and completely ignores RonJones'. Finally, when I actually argue policy which you are all misinterpreting, you remain steadfast. Discussions on Wikipedia seem to be a joke, with the first comment setting the tone and everyone else just piling on. For someone feigning "sympathy" for me, you sure had no problem calling me a pest and levying accusations of subterfuge on me. And lastly, you're still going on about pointyness and threats while RonJones still hasn't been told anything about his edit warring. Some sympathizer you are. Opencooper (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's quite clear from everyone's comments here that a mass-nomination is inappropriate since each image needs to be considered on its own merits and be made as small as possible while still being useful. Thus this should be procedurally closed based on the arguments of all the "reduce all" voters themselves. There's no magic number that every file can be reduced to, and anyone who isn't a bot would understand that. Opencooper (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see nothing wrong with a mass nomination, where the starting rationale is the same for all images. It's been done before (and very often at commons), and editors could make statements here like "keep all"; "reduce all"; "reduce A,B,C - keep X,Y,Z) - it does not always have to be an "all" vote. If the uploader does not like our guideline, he is always free to suggest a change at WP:VPP, it's been there since mid 2011, maybe it does need an update, but that's for a community discussion to resolve, not here. As an aside, in general the guideline size works very well for most images (posters, record covers, portraits, game covers) without affecting the article (I would estimate 99.9% reduce OK), and the article is the only place we should be concerned about. I know there are files where you cannot achieve the guideline without significant or total corruption of the image (often computer screenshots, where the image is effectively pixelated to start with) - and on many of these I have tried manual reduction to various sizes with PhotoShop, sometimes without any success, hence a good reason for the "no reduce" template - it shows images that do not reduce well. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: Mass nominations at Commons are about copyvios, that's not even relevant here. And you seem to be confused, you're the one going against guideline, hence you're the one who needs to get it changed. I also notice you go into these digressions like how you're only doing your job or this unnecessary tangent on computer graphics. Funny how you say it applies well to all, then immediately contradict yourself, especially when you snuck a photograph into a nomination of comic covers. I also noticed you're suddenly mum once I called you out on your behavior. Bullies always are special kinds of cowards who get shook once the mirror is turned on them. Not only is the mass-nomination void, so is your original rationale about "high resolution", and you know it. Opencooper (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opencooper: That's quite enough. If you continue making personal attacks/threats, disrupting this discussion, and/or playing victim/ignoring consensus, then expect me or another admin to block you for disruptive editing. Please drop the stick and let the issue rest. Consider yourself warned. Regards, FASTILY 08:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

December 29

File:2008 KD logo.gif

File:Sui Dhaaga 2018.jpg

File:Photographs of Club Ponytail in Harbor Springs, Michigan.png

File:Photograph of Public Artist Martin Firrell by Will J Jackson.jpg

File:Generali Tower Milan 02.jpg

File:GE - Good Ending v1 cover.jpg