Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christ is Risen 3.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No real source, false author, false license; I am not convinced that this is pre-1917. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Pieter Kuiper seems to be having a bad track record on these, no facts presented apart from Pieter Kuiper's suspicions during his blatant image stalking campaign, apparently intended to stop me from making any positive contribution to Wikimedia Commons. I have invited Pieter Kuiper to discuss improvements with me, but he seems incapable of collaborating while he has the free forum of Wikimedia Commons to make derogatory allegations and deride me with sarcasm. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Was kept by admin Fastily without reason. But the CC license is obviously false; there is no real source, paukrus did not respect copyrights. 95.195.158.142 21:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment This is Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), refer to whois. Can an admin please block this as another socking IP address. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)- Keep As before, the paukrus Flickrstream was a perfectly good source of pre-1917 postcard scans. This is one of them and Pieter Kuiper, arisen as an anonymous sockpuppet IP, has yet to show any evidence to suspect otherwise. --Fæ (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept, per all respondents to last deletion discusison, per admin decision from last deletion discussion, per comments from respondents to this deletion discussion, and please note the blatant violations of site policy to commit block evasion by the nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
