Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/January 2007

< Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion

Archive for Project:Votes for deletion acted on in January 2007. If you can't find the chronicle that interests you here, try Project:Votes for deletion/December 2006 or Project:Votes for deletion/February 2007 for things that may have happened earlier or later, respectively.

Article about a mountain range with a travel log. It is not what we do. This might be morphed into an Itinerary.

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:40, 1 January 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Not a travel-related image, nor does this fall into the "personal picture" exception for user pages. Speedy delete is probably fine, listed here to hopefully catch the uploader's attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete Someone is using Wikivoyage to post there pictures and notices to use for something other then travel. This should be a speedy delete. If any of them are valid, the user can justify and re-upload or we can have an admin undelete. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel)
  • Delete. Not a travel-related image, nor does this fall into the "personal picture" exception for user pages. Speedy delete is probably fine, listed here to hopefully catch the uploader's attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete (See reason above) -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:37, 2 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Not a travel-related image, nor does this fall into the "personal picture" exception for user pages. Speedy delete is probably fine, listed here to hopefully catch the uploader's attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete (See reason above) -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:37, 2 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Not a travel-related image, nor does this fall into the "personal picture" exception for user pages. Speedy delete is probably fine, listed here to hopefully catch the uploader's attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete (See reason above) -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:37, 2 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Not a travel-related image, nor does this fall into the "personal picture" exception for user pages. Speedy delete is probably fine, listed here to hopefully catch the uploader's attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete (See reason above) -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:37, 2 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Not a travel-related image, nor does this fall into the "personal picture" exception for user pages. Speedy delete is probably fine, listed here to hopefully catch the uploader's attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete (See reason above) -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:37, 2 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. Not a travel-related image, nor does this fall into the "personal picture" exception for user pages. Speedy delete is probably fine, listed here to hopefully catch the uploader's attention. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:14, 1 January 2007 (EST)
  • Speedy Delete (See reason above) -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:37, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Same as above. Speedy looks right, but maybe not until he finishes these. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:33, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Appears to be some kind of sign/information, but is not in English, so shouldn't be on here. Does anyone know what it says?! (WT-en) Tim 11:54, 2 January 2007 (EST)

It's an invite to a student reunion in Chiang Rai, Thailand, on January 5th 2007 ~ 203.144.143.8 12:33, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome on all of the above: Speedy deletes per bullet 1 of the speedy-deletion policy. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:07, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Copyvio from Wikipedia, as are all the pictures. Should probably be rolled into Novi Sad. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:52, 17 December 2006 (EST)

Delete -- (WT-en) Jonboy 15:01, 22 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect to Novi Sad. Are any of the images public domain, or licensed in a way to allow use in the Novi Sad article? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:32, 23 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:33, 31 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect (WT-en) Terence Ong 00:32, 3 January 2007 (EST)
  • Before taking action on this, a question: Are the surviving images still Wikipedia copyvios? The article has been pared down to two, both of which claim to have 1.0 releases, and I can't find them on WP (unlike the ones that were deleted). Can anyone see reasons to delete those two images? It affects the way the redirect will be done. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:48, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Novi Sad. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:47, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Conflicts with the "photos with recognizable people in the picture" restriction. ~ 203.144.143.4 00:12, 18 December 2006 (EST)

  • Not sure. The only page this thing links to is a user page for User:(WT-en) Owl. We are usually somewhat more forgiving about model releases for photos only on user pages than on "content" pages, but there's no way to tell whether the woman shown is related/connected to the user. I therefore lean toward a delete, but let's discuss. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:37, 23 December 2006 (EST)
Please see this edit: - vfd'd image - per Project:Votes_for_deletion#Nominating step 2 (If the article or image meets the deletion criteria, do any preparatory work (like orphaning an image, or combining the article with one it duplicates) prior to listing it here.) ~ 203.144.143.4 01:35, 24 December 2006 (EST)
And your point is? The question is not whether the image was linked to somewhere where the model release applies, it's whether it is linked to such a place. Agreed, the fact that someone, once, linked it to a destination page weakens the case for it only being user-page material, but still, look at the way things are, not the way they used to be. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:07, 24 December 2006 (EST)
The nominator removed it as part of the nomination process. You seem to be proposing a catch-22 where an image must be removed from articles before being nominated (per the guidelines) but that people should not vote an image for deletion once removed from articles. Note that per the guidelines, if this vfd fails we are supposed to restore the image to the Ko Samui article. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:51, 31 December 2006 (EST)
Fair enough. Delete. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:08, 31 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep -- (WT-en) Jonboy 14:58, 31 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. The image was uploaded by User:(WT-en) Owl for use in the Ko Samui article. And he did add it there. The image is on his homepage too merely as part of the gallery of his in-use pictures. So this is a case of an image with a model being used in an article and is not the usual case of a personal image meant strictly for his user page. -- (WT-en) Colin 15:51, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:51, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Doesn't seem significant enough to warrant own article. Current info is a direct copy edit from Wikipedia: . Have added name of temple with basic info to 'get out' section of article for Kalady, the nearest center of population. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:19, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Then shouldn't it be a redirect to Kalady? I think most attractions in a Get Out section should be redirects to that article... (WT-en) Maj 01:21, 22 December 2006 (EST)
Sure, redirect is a better option. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:23, 22 December 2006 (EST)
Have redirected to Kalady. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:26, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Kalady. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)

No such place (Getty | Google | Wikipedia) - possibly the name of one or more houses or buildings, and/or a person's name or alias. ~ 203.144.143.8 10:13, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:58, 6 January 2007 (EST)

I'm fairly sure "LB" is not the kind of place that needs a huge city template and districts. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:55, 20 December 2006 (EST)

  • I'm not so sure. According to Wikipedia, LB itself has about half a million people (and is undoubtedly growing like wildfire), and it has its own suburbs. Furthermore, someone has, after all, tried to district-ize the parent Long Beach article. I lean toward Delete, but this one is worth discussing. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:44, 23 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep - (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 13:33, 31 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete for now. (WT-en) Terence Ong 01:01, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:59, 6 January 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure where this belongs, but I'm pretty sure the answer is not "in its own article". (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:06, 23 December 2006 (EST)

  • I vote not to delete this project and article. I'm not sure where this belongs either, but I'm pretty sure I'm making progress in the right direction. This is not spam and I felt it would be pertinent to travelors in Montana who are looking for references for tourism and activities of all sorts. Should this article be placed somewhere else? (WT-en) Mcdav 06:06, 23 December 2006 (CST)
  • Delete. It should probably be a "Do" bullet in Billings, but I'm not sure. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 09:58, 23 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect to Billings. Mcdav, please see Project:What is an article? for info on what kind of articles we have in Wikivoyage. The WRC should be a "Do" entry in Billings. --(WT-en) Evan 11:00, 23 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete, but a much-condensed version should definitely be in Billings. (User:(WT-en) Mcdav, I recommend you take a look at Project:Goals and non-goals to get a sense of the reasons for this; the Billings article could reasonably have a pointer to this outfit's web page, but the sales pitch qualifies as a non-goal.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:02, 23 December 2006 (EST)
  • Work with me here!! Bill, I checked out "What is an article" that is appropriate for wikivoyage. As you can see, I've just begun to dive into this in the last couple of days. This company is so diverse and mobile along with it's many different itineraries it has that I feel it doesn't do any travelor justice for what they can do with Western Romance Company. I have so much info about this company to relate and write about that I didn't want the billings, and Huntley, webpages on wikivoyage to look like it's just a promotion for this company. I'd rather have one or two links that just point to a full article on WRC. I have tried to add a number of entries to the billings page and because there aren't a lot of others posting on that page at this time that is appears like it's just promotional advertising for this company. In addition, The company is mobile in that it's tours and events are in different cities in Montana that I opted not to add an article in each city. For example, Custer's last Stand Reenactment occurs in hardin and Crow Agency Montana of which WRC participates greatly in, Secondly, The residence for WRC is in Huntley, just 12 miles outside of Billings, but have an office in Billings, Pompey's Pillar is where one of the stops are located where lewis and Clark signed there names. The Happy Pappy's Holdup takes place in outside of Ballintine on the way to Hardin MT. In addition, WRC has entertainers that perform exclusively with them in their events. Catered chuckwagon meals are another program of this company for they promote Cowboy Beans, and Montana made food. So I have thought this through for a while now and have decided to add to the projects. I'm sure I'm missing other things at this time about WRC like their Music company like Strawberry Hill Music, etc so either time is needed to develope this project or I'm open for other suggestions. I'm learning as I go so be patient in that I'm attending professional education right now but am committed to help those who come to Montana as well. In the future, I'd like to recommend other places but first things first. Let me know. --(WT-en) Mcdav 11:00, 23 December 2006 (EST)
  • Comment: I just saw the discussion about deleting Western Romance Company. I'm likely to support its deletion, but I do have a suggestion. If you make sure that you are the only author of the text you can relicense the text under the GNU FDL license and list the company on Yellowikis, which is a dedicated open content world wide business directory. If you have any more questions about that I'll see if I can get answers. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 22:30, 23 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete. Add an entry for this in Billings, give Mcdav a chance to copy the stuff to any other wiki so he doesn't lose his work, then delete this en toto. -- (WT-en) Colin 23:59, 23 December 2006 (EST)
  • If I'm understanding correctly, if I add a few links to the Billings, and Huntley Montana pages, can I link them to this artice in wikipedia?? (WT-en) Mcdav 20:28, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:09, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Is part of the Indiana regions but useless since it represents the Central Indiana area. I started writing this, then decided to merge it with Central Indiana. (WT-en) Missvain 22:58, 20 December 2006 (EST)

  • Keep - 13,000 Google hits for "Nine-County Region" +Indiana - better to redirect to Central Indiana than to delete ~ 203.144.143.8 01:29, 21 December 2006 (EST)
  • Waffle, but I note that "Nine-County Region" is a slightly more evocative name than "Central Indiana". I'm not a fan of "North Foo", "South Foo", "East Foo" regions, and if there's a local name that stands out more, I much prefer it. --(WT-en) Evan 02:04, 21 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep as a redirect. Wikipedia also uses this as a region , but Central Indiana is a lot better at saying where this region actually is. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:18, 21 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. I'm with Evan; if a region name is in common use, then use it. If anything, I could see Central Indiana getting redirected to this article rather than the other way around, the more so since User:(WT-en) Missvain did a nice job of starting content for it (which can easily be resurrected). WTP? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 10:44, 21 December 2006 (EST)
  • I think the consensus for a keep is clear, and I'm removing this from the VFD. However, work still has to be done to reconcile this one with Central Indiana. "Plunge forward," as the saying goes. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:30, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:35, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I created this, but on Talk:Woodworth#Are the linked towns article-worthy? it's been suggested ...not sure there's a reason for this article to be here. ~ 203.144.143.2 00:28, 25 December 2006 (EST)

  • Delete until/unless the disambiguation page is eventually needed. This article was original created without any location information by 74.69.245.148, speedy deleted, and then re-created as a disambiguation page that links to two non-existent articles. Of the two towns being linked to, one has a population of 80, and the other is part of a larger city, so I'm not sure that we would create articles for either one, which leaves the question of why would we have a disambiguation page when we don't (and may never) have articles? If we're going to create an article or a redirect for every dot on the map then this disambiguation page will eventually be needed and should be kept, but if we're going to continue to use the criteria that not every map dot necessarily gets its own article then this disambiguation page is unnecessary. Talk:Woodworth has further comments. -- (WT-en) Ryan 02:39, 25 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep. Both places exist, one is fairly large with a population over 1,000 Woodworth_Louisiana] with their own webpage and the home of Indian Creek Recreation Area (whatever that is). The other town is smaller with 80 people Woodworth_North_Dakota and was established in 1911 and is in a state where small towns and places are the rule. Both of those places deserve an article, so at some point the disambiguation will be needed, better now then after someone creates the location without disambiguation (again). As far a creating a article or redirect for every "dot" on the map, I think we need to define what a dot is and how to handle them. Of course, my first question is "If there is a dot on the map, then why?" My guess is that someone might want to know where it is at so they can visit. I realize there are people that think if a place is not a "Megagobmetroplexamusalopalus" (that's hillbilly for a big town) then there is no reason to visit, see, do and for sure if you can't find a commercial establishment to "pay" to sleep, then there is no reason to ever visit or to think anyone else would ever go there and they should be quickly deleted. I disagree. Funny thing about it is there are people in small towns that are so misinformed to think places like New York should be deleted. Now I do agree that "we" would likely not create an article for this places (the small ones), but I do think that "someone" might and for that matter should create one. Now if someone stumbles across the dab page and creates an article for one of the places, is that bad? Should it be VFD'ed? The answer in the past has been "No"! Because if someone creates an article with "good" intent about town then is should be kept! Here is my thought.... Someone types in the search "Woodworth".... "Wow, there is the link to my town!" They think; I am welcome, they want me here, my town has a link, I love my town, let me put some information in so everyone will know about it and what is good about the place where I live. If this dab is deleted, trust me.... At some point we will have a Woodworth that is created again and every time we delete it, we will be deleting the user that created it. Gee, I do wish that would work in the case of our article creation monster 74.69.245.148. Lastly, thanks to all for putting up this small town guy and hillbilly from the Ozarks and with all my rants for small places, have a very good and happy New Year! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 07:49, 25 December 2006 (EST)
  • Keep, at least until we get the "Rural Areas" destination type that has been discussed lately. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 15:13, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Kept. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)

This is a subdivision in Gaithersburg, which is a town of <100K in Maryland, so I don't think it qualifies as a "huge city" with districts. I think the article violates the hierarchy rules.

  • Redirect/merge -- I suggest it should be redirected to Gaithersburg. See Talk:Kentlands for the discussion (WT-en) Tom and I have had about this. Even if it were a district, it should be Gaithersburg/Kentlands. I feel weird putting something up for a vfd, and not voting delete, but this seemed to be the best way of resolving the disagreement. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 17:47, 28 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect to Gaithersburg. Gaithersburg is a nice place, but it isn't exactly a huge city... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 17:50, 28 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect After sleeping on this one, you guys are right. I am proceeding to redirect this to Gaithersburg. That matches policy for this one. As previously argued Gaithersburg is not large enough article for districts and after thinking about it this would open a slippery slope for a lot of other locations. I am pretty sure we do not want to do that at this point. Maybe later, but a policy change on this now would likely open the gates too wide. If anyone want to argue the other way on this, please proceed, but I am good with the consensus to do a redirect. Any content is preserved on the redirect history and I do the work to merge it to Gaithersburg. Any, disagreement... do it now or this one is a speedy! -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 09:51, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Gaithersburg. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:43, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Copyvio. The uploader thoughtfully provided the link that it's copyrighted on: http://www.santorini-weddings.info/santorini-weddings/ -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:26, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted (alas -- it was a gorgeous photo!) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:46, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Copyvio from http://eng.admkrsk.ru/doc.asp?id=22 -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 04:59, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:06, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 13:06, 13 January 2007 (EST)

  • Obvious copyvio. No copyright provided. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:42, 30 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:04, 13 January 2007 (EST)

From the page, "* Delete. Miguel Santa Fe is not a valid place name, it doesnt even exist, it was a typo. The correct name is just Santa Fe. This page has no content. The correct stub has been created and is growing. (WT-en) Fabz 23:32, 30 December 2006 (EST)"

  • I'm transferring this from the page itself, since it belongs here. Haven't thought about it, so Abstain. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 00:03, 31 December 2006 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 16:24, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Image:Pioneerpark.jpg Image:Hermitscaves.JPG Image:Yancoag.jpg Image:Hydroleeton.jpg Image:Watertowerleeton.jpg Image:Roxywmleeton.jpg Image:Roxyleeton.jpg

  • Delete. Images uploaded by contributor who has performed a significant number of cut-n-paste copyvios with text. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:25, 4 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. At the minimum, the Leeton images are clear copyvios from here. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:55, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: all Deleted. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)

  • We could possibly turn this into an travel topic about volunteering in Nepal, but I think that would really be stretching it. Delete. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 11:15, 30 December 2006 (EST)
  • Delete; speedy OK. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:38, 30 December 2006 (EST)
  • Redirect to Nepal and ask the contributor to move the content to his/her user page. This is someone with a lot of excellent first-hand travel info and it would be a shame to loose it. I'll do a welcome message to explain our Project:Goals and non-goals. (WT-en) Maj 12:33, 31 December 2006 (EST)
    • We're way past the usual deadline for deciding what to do with a VFD. If this move is going to get made, let's make it and resolve this. Otherwise the article is going away based on the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:51, 18 January 2007 (EST)

speedy deleted — (WT-en) Ravikiran 10:46, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Not an article; obvious candidate for speedy deletion. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:24, 8 January 2007 (EST)

  • Redirect to Germany - I'm not opposed to deletion since this doesn't meet the Project:What is an article? criteria, but it can't hurt to keep the content in history. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:51, 8 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. I don't want to provoke a series of "Racism in..." articles. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 08:38, 22 January 2007 (EST)
  • No consensus to keep. Deleted. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:27, 25 January 2007 (EST)

A street in Istanbul, not even a district. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:04, 12 January 2007 (EST)

Deleted. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 20:37, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Spelling mistake in the name. Should be transfrontier, not transfontier I have created Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park and copied the little available information over to the new page. Have also changed all existing article links to the new page. (WT-en) NJR_ZA 14:36, 10 January 2007 (EST)

  • Redirect to the article with the correct spelling. That's the norm for handling articles that are legitimate but have a spelling error in the name, the reasoning being that if somebody goofed when creating the article, someone else might goof when looking for it. I'm taking the liberty of the redirect, although the VFD discussion should remain open. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:42, 10 January 2007 (EST)
  • Redirect -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:28, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Redirected to Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:14, 26 January 2007 (EST)

This is a tiny picture with no license stated. I've uploaded wts:Image:Sydney_Opera_House_Sails.jpg, a dual-licensed image I got from the Wikimedia Commons as a suitable replacement. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 12:51, 12 January 2007 (EST)

  • Delete. Jonboy's photo is more appropriate and doesn't have the licensing issue. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 00:05, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 12:00, 27 January 2007 (EST)

I have no idea what this is about, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a destination, itinerary or topic. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 21:03, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Delete--(WT-en) Jonboy 23:09, 26 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Deleted. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 12:03, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Pictures from User JensANDMarian

edit

Please delete all pictures listed below. I uploaded all these Images and I am the sole copyright holder of all pictures. I uploaded these pictures to further the development of Wikivoyage. However, since the Wikivoyage domain (including its content) was sold and became an commercial site itself I am not willing to grant you the use of my work. (WT-en) JensANDMarian


  • Keep. Please reread the license you consented to and try to understand it. The license has always allowed commercial users to copy stuff from us and publish it -- just check out the list of other sites who are already reusing it for commercial purposes. Did you know that Wikipedia allows it too? Did you know that Wikipedia has never promised you they will not add ads to their web pages in the future? Also, it is not true that the "content was sold." The copyright for each piece of work you have ever contributed still belongs to you even though you cannot change the terms. Did you know that the new hosting company for wikivoyage cannot ever change the terms for your uploads? Your uploads will always be free for anyone to copy. Anyone who wants will be free to copy EVERYTHING from Wikivoyage and make their own site -- they always have been allowed, and always will be. So explain this to me again. If the terms for reusing material from Wikivoyage are going to remain the same as they always have been, what is so darn evil about letting a commercial company pay for hosting our website? -- (WT-en) Colin 17:42, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Any non-inuse images are okay with me to delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • All photos which were meant for your user page (and contain images of people) are okay with me to delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:32, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • DELETE. The work was posted on WT in good faith at a time that WT was a "Wiki", but not owned by Internetbrands.com. Since I am the copyright holder of the pictures I am entitled to refuse you the rigths to use these pictures, because you did not tell me the whole story about commercialising WT in first place.
  • The reasons why I decided to disallow WT the use of my pictures is the conflict of interest of a commercial entity as Internetbrands.com and a travelguide.
  • Well on the other side my contributions are minor and do you think you are doing the reputation of Wikivoyage a favour by retaining work on the server when the originator does not give his consent.
  • Colin , I can't comment on the future directions of Wikipedia, but as far as I can see Wikipedia resisted the tempation of going commercial for quiet a while and they retain a lively community supporting WP with donations and free work.
  • (WT-en) JensANDMarian 19:07, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Good thing Wikipedia was founded by a millionaire who had already made a ton of money in the web porn business and could finance something philanthropic. Of course, he has started a business to make money off this whole Wiki thing. It's just the encyclopedia which is philanthropic. Wikivoyage lacked that sort of luck. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • Colin: Can't comment if this is true or not, but your claim seems weird to me and it is off topic as well. I would appreciate if you could provide me with a link that Wikipedia was founded by a millionaire who had already made a ton of money in the web porn business. I have to say that your arguments are silly (unless you provide a link to a credible source). (WT-en) JensANDMarian 20:24, 6 January 2007 (EST)
      • See WikiPedia:Jimmy Wales. You are correct that the nature of his finances is offtopic. The only on-topic part is that he could afford to finance it. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:47, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete. This seems like an issue of courtesy, rather than legality, since legally it's clear that these images are being used in accordance with the CC-SA license that they were released under. While legally the images can be used here, I think it sets a bad precedent if a user who contributed content and then later asks that the content be removed is not allowed to do so - people add content here in good faith, and I think we should respect requests to remove that content if desired. However, JensANDMarian needs to understand that he has licensed his images under the CC-SA, they have been made available on the web, and if they appear elsewhere, even on a commercial site, he no longer has the legal right to retroactively change the licensing. -- (WT-en) Ryan 19:20, 6 January 2007 (EST)
    • What of the mirrors and the fork? Is he going to eliminate the images from them too? If he doesn't, then we can just copy his stuff right back from the Mirrors (or someone might). I really don't want to set this kind of precedent. I'm okay with deleting any images not in use. I'm okay with someone who misunderstands and changes their mind shortly after uploading. But years later? At the very least, if we're going to delete them then I want a commitment from JensANDMarian that he is going to ask each and every Mirror to remove them. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:55, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Colin thank you very much for very thougtful comments. I will try to eliminate pictures that have been uploaded by other sides and I hope you (Colin) and Evan will assist me in doing so. Re-loading of images from other sites that have been deleted on WT is very naughty, because you have been told off and your are not entitled to use them anymore.

Thank you very much for your future co-operation. (WT-en) JensANDMarian 20:44, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Check out Project:Mirrors which lists the mirrors we are aware of. Since your username is pretty unique, Googling for "JensANDMarian" results in nearly a thousand hits most of which are presumably related to your contributions (the number of sites will be less, of course) and may give you an idea of the scope of what you are asking. Also checkout our beloved fork, WikiVoyage which has also copied your stuff. Lastly, we are not in the habit of verifying the lack of naughtiness of our users, so it's entirely conceivable that some innocent user will find your images on a different site, note that the license is appropriate for copying back to Wikivoyage, and will copy it. -- (WT-en) Colin 20:54, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Just to add another comment here, I'm in favor of deleting Jen's images that are currently on Wikivoyage, but I'm COMPLETELY opposed to policing Wikivoyage, the mirrors, or anywhere else to make sure these images aren't re-uploaded: Jens, you released them under the CC-SA, and they are on the web and available for anyone to use them under that license. In the future, if someone re-uploads one of your images here after grabbing it from another site, that's definitely not "naughty", that's legal under the terms of the license that YOU agreed to. Second, I don't expect Colin, Evan or anyone else to assist in deleting these images from anywhere other than Wikivoyage - assuming other sites are providing attribution, they are using the images legally. Jens, again, if you want them deleted it's up to you to track down the images, and it's also up to you to convince site owners to delete content that they are legally using. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:02, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Agree completely with Ryan. Deleting an image when requested by the person who uploaded the image is common courtesy, and we do it all the time, although usually for other reasons. But re-use of images elsewhere is explicitly allowed under CC-SA, and the genie is out of the bottle. Not only is it not our problem, it is by definition not a problem. Meanwhile, JensANDMarian, I hope that you'll take Evan up on his call for dialogue below. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 22:07, 6 January 2007 (EST)
I notice the images are also in use on de:. Whose job is it to tell the German Wikivoyagers? -- (WT-en) Colin 21:12, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Abstain. JensANDMarian, under the license you used when you released the work, everybody -- including Wikivoyage -- is allowed to use your work forever. Once you have given that permission, it cannot be revoked (per section 7b, Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work).) That all said, if you're really sure that you want them removed, I think everyone would rather remove them than have a big problem with a longtime member of the community like you. Your contributions have been much appreciated and I'd be sad to see your very nice photographs go. However, I'd prefer that we actually talked about the issues that seem to have you upset, rather than taking this step. You've done a good thing sharing your work with the world, and I'd hate for that generous gesture to go to waste. Please talk to me on my talk page, User talk:(WT-en) Evan, if you have some questions, comments, or issues you'd like to discuss. --(WT-en) Evan 21:45, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. VfD is not the right way to go about this: the images are fully CC-by-sa compliant. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:59, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep. As others have said, the license does not allow for the retraction of rights. With the exception of Image:DSC01650.jpg, which seems to violate Project:Image_policy#People_in_photos. For that, I vote Delete. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 02:19, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • He seems to mean all his pictures, which can be found through this link. JensANDMarian, can you please check that link and clarify if you mean to nominate all the other ones too? A number of his images were meant for his user page. -- (WT-en) Colin 02:32, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Delete, but keep if somebody copies them back in from one of the mirrors, especially if they come from Wikivoyage. I'm seriously confused as to why people who are unable to see that having IB own the right to host the site has changed exactly nothing, however it harms us not the least to comply with this request. Meanwhile the funny thing is that Lonely Planet and Microsoft still have Jens' and Maria's express permission to use the images, but not us. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:13, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Mark, other sites that use for example the KNP article from Wikivoyage have done simply done a copy paste job. Once they update their Wikivoyage article they will display the latest version of the Wikivoyage article and if my images have been deleted they will put an update without those images on their servers. Therefore is it only a matter of time till all my images are removed from WT and sites that use articles and pictures from Wikivoyage. Obviously, it will take some time till the last webpage gets updated, but it will eventually happen. (WT-en) JensANDMarian 10:18, 8 January 2007 (EST)

Free Content is what we're talking about here. You released your images under a Free license, and now that somebody you've never think you might not like owns the servers that those images are hosting you want to try to take that license back. I wish you would open your eyes to the simple fact that what you are doing is no different from say Caldera which released the Linux kernel under the GPL for years, and then suddenly changed their name to SCO and started a law suit and a nasty press campaign against big bad nasty old IBM for having -- "on no!" --- used the same license. You don't seem to understand this, but you are behaving exactly the same way.
I would, as many others here have, ask you to please read the license. I've been involved in Free Software (logiciels libre) for some time now, and am nearly militant about it. What I see happening here is that some guy who is a relative newcomer is out there running a disinformation campaign about one of the founders of this website, Evan.
So what's mine is yours, but what's yours is only for you if you change your mind because of something which as far as I can tell does not effect our relationship a tiny little bit. That's the thing, you still don't seem to understand. IB may own the servers this site runs on, and may own the trademark to the name, but you and I and the others still own the content, and we always have.
So, I suppose that there are scads of my work showing up in a certain other project, and you know what: That's tough, but the license is the license is the license. You are free to use my work wherever you like because I understand that the stand I took for Free Content is the stand I meant to take. -- (WT-en) Mark 09:58, 9 January 2007 (EST)
You realy seem to be pretty militant, but not neccessarily for freedom. We still expect your apology. -- (WT-en) Hansm 04:18, 14 January 2007 (EST)
For what? For pointing out to Wikivoyagers that you are behaving badly in other forums? For asking you to apologise to evan? For making you look like the jerk that you are? -- (WT-en) Mark 11:59, 17 January 2007 (EST)
  • I'm abstaining from this vote, for now, but I have a question for everyone that's voting delete out of courtesy. Hypothetically, if I get all pissed off at you guys (especially (WT-en) Mr. Prodromou - I might as well join the bandwagon) for not telling me the domain and servers are owned by IB, or because IB starts advertising with the annoying blinking ads saying I was the 10,000,000th million visitor and won some non-existent Playstation 3, and I demand all the photos I own the copyright to be removed from the WT sites do you extend the courtesy? What if I demand that you delete every single contribution I made? I'm worried that we're becoming a little too courteous. In the past couple of months we've become increasingly accommodating, so much so I can't tell where we draw the lines between being reasonable and trying to protect people from their inability to read the By clicking "Save" below, you acknowledge that you agree to the site license as well as the following: line. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:54, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • Here's my opinion, others probably feel differently. There seem to be a lot of jobs that come up around here where some people say "I don't want to do it, but if someone else is willing to do it then I don't care if they do" (Special:Contributions/74.69.245.148 comes to mind...), and generally someone else is willing to do the job. In this case I don't mind tracking down Jens' images and deleting them from the site, and since he's asked us to do so it seems like the courteous thing to do. If 10 people a week were asking us to remove their images, or if someone who had contributed hundreds of images was doing so, my willingness to accommodate them would be considerably less, especially since we have numerous notices about the site's licensing. However, I also think that if we had 10 people a week asking for their contributions to be removed then we'd be talking about how to make people better understand the license, rather than whether to extend a courtesy to someone who should have read the license but didn't. -- (WT-en) Ryan 04:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Question for JensANDMarian: it appears that you are working on WikiVoyage, which is no doubt a fine project. But if you are uploading images there, then you are once again giving us rights to your images (you have read the license by now, right?). So do you plan on asking WikiVoyage to remove your images? -- (WT-en) Colin 15:17, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • WikiVoyage is an separate issue and I have to discuss this with Hansm on the German site. (WT-en) JensANDMarian 10:18, 8 January 2007 (EST)
    • Jens, both sites are under the CC-SA license, so it is not a separate issue. Either you want to release your content under the CC-SA or you do not. You cannot make contributions to WikiVoyage and then request that those contributions not be used on Wikivoyage - read Project:Copyleft and the text of the CC-SA license. The issue is whether or not you want your content under the CC-SA or not; if you do not, I vote to delete the images you've specified. If you DO want your content released under the CC-SA but do not want it used on Wikivoyage then you are adding additional restrictions to the CC-SA license, which is not allowed, and therefore I would say we should keep your contributions on the site. -- (WT-en) Ryan 11:05, 8 January 2007 (EST)
  • Ryan thanks for your contributions in this discussion you raised some good points there. I will approach other websites that host my pictures and ask them to take off their website to prevent any confusion in that matter. But obviously I have to approach them individually and it will take a while till last user of this pictures is informed.

(WT-en) JensANDMarian 06:04, 9 January 2007 (EST)

  • Delete This is courtest as someone has already said. Many people supported Wikivoyage because it was part of a non-profit company. Now it's not and lots of people, especially outside of the USA, have a BIG problem with this. We see information as being a resource which has no price and shouldn't be used for commercial gain. I'm sure that technically, if we wanted to be bastards, we could just grab the pictures again from another website but that would just be stupid. (WT-en) Xania 18:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • Please re-read Project:Copyleft and the text of the CC-SA license. As Mark stated above, whether Wikivoyage is commercial or not has absolutely no relevance - if someone releases content under the CC-SA license, it can (and probably will) be used anywhere, by anyone, provided they follow the terms of the license. Commercial sites, for-profit institutions, and unscrupulous individuals looking to make a quick buck have just as much right to the content as those without any commercial interest at all. I believe that it's a courtesy to remove someone's content if they request us to do so, but that content shouldn't have been released under the CC-SA license in the first place if the creator was unwilling to allow others to use it commercially. -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:35, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • Xania, Why and how would it be stupid to use materials which are published under a license allowing us to use them? Do you think I get paid to work on Wikivoyage? Do you think I'm in the USA? I'm not, but isn't that off-topic?
    • Why don't you go and talk to some repected people in Free Software in Europe about what they think about people trying to get out of a Free Software license after they've published some work under it? I know a few folks I can send you to.
    • For some reason somebody out there is unfairly branding our project as being somehow less than Free, and for some reason some people seem to be believing that. For some reason people are conflating non-profit with Free content. I think these people are just not paying attention. As far as I can tell the fact that several other sites exist which are based on this content prooves that Wikivoyage is still a project to create a Free travel guide. -- (WT-en) Mark 10:48, 9 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep all except for Image:DSC01650.jpg and user images. Deleting them would be to acknowledge the accusations that "the originator does not give his consent" (he did, but changed his mind later) and that we did not tell "the whole story about commercialising" - the copyleft and the cc-by-sa-1.0 license are pretty straightforward about telling contributors that their stuff "can be used for commercial ventures, advertisements, or other purposes (with some restrictions -- see privacy rights and publicity rights) without your direct control". It's not about being courteous or bastards~: Jen and Marian must learn to live with the fact that once the pictures were uploaded, they are no longer free to revoke the freedom they gave to others. By the way, Image:Elephant Walking.JPG and Image:Lion Walking.JPG were uploaded by (WT-en) Jpatokal, so why are they listed there too? -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 21:25, 7 January 2007 (EST)
    • I've removed the two images you pointed out from the list. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:38, 7 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep Courtesy goes both ways. I haven't seen much from the person requesting deletion. Also, I'm perplexed why someone would claim Wikivoyage is a "commercial" site. There is no chare or fee to use Wikivoyage, and no advertising on the site (in fact, adverts are specifically banned from the pages). So there is nothing being "commercialized" here. The ownership structure of the backers of Wikivoyage is basically irrelevant. (WT-en) SONORAMA 00:05, 8 January 2007 (EST)
  • SONORAMA: This is from the press release after Internetbrands acquired Wikivoyage (please note that I uploaded my pictures at a time that the Wikivoyage domain was owned by Evan and there was no obviouse talk that WT would go down that route that it went. At leaset I did not see it coming)

Business Model

Internet Brands recognizes that even the prospect of commercialization of some community driven sites, such as Wikipedia.org, has produced controversy among community members. Internet Brands believes the goals of the community can be facilitated and enhanced by thoughtful monetization strategies. For example, numerous wiki sites currently carry non-obtrusive, cost-per-click advertising in order to fund operating costs and future development.

The current Wikivoyage site has no advertising, while World66.com has two types of monetization: Google adwords and link revenues from a hotel-booking partner. Over time and with community input, Internet Brands will consider context-relevant commercial links that would be consistent with the project's goals and that would enhance the overall utility of the site to users.

"The executives at Internet Brands have extensive publishing experience in protecting editorial integrity in online and offline environments," said Brisco. "The best of the traditional media, such as the leading newspapers, have successfully balanced protecting editorial integrity and accepting advertising for decades. With these two travel communities, we will look to Evan and Michele to continue to supervise the development of community editorial policies," said Brisco.

For your informations the full press relase can be found here: [http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=27587&script=410&layout=-6&item_id=845378}

(WT-en) JensANDMarian 07:18, 9 January 2007 (EST)

    • For what it's worth, you should eventually expect Google Ads or similar stuff to appear alongside the content. Gotta pay those hosting bills somehow! Other Wikis do this like the Star Trek wiki or Wiki Outdoors. -- (WT-en) Colin 00:25, 8 January 2007 (EST)
    • Don't forget WikiHow. Personally, I like how they handle their advertisements. If you're not logged in you'll see the ads, but if you are logged in you will not see the ads. That aside, this discussion isn't really about advertising, but deleting images. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 02:11, 8 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep This is absurd. The photos were all released under the CC by SA 1.0 (and other licenses in some cases) and that has not changed. There is no way to put the lid on the box after they are released. You can only conform to the license. The time for decision was prior to uploading. You can not get mad and take your marbles and go home. The marbles no longer belong to you. I can understand that you do not like IB to own Wikivoyage, but even they do not own the content! It is all released under CC by SA 1.0. Now, all of that said, I would not be against deleting any personal photos that are not being used in actual travel articles on Wikivoyage. If you want to list those, I will delete them for you but the others are out of the box and will stay that way. And to be honest, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. It's a done deal. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 08:36, 9 January 2007 (EST)
  • This one is coming up on its 14 days, and while there are more "keep" than "delete" votes (as well as a couple of abstains) it doesn't quite meet the "consensus to keep" criteria. Does anyone else have any comments? -- (WT-en) Ryan 01:37, 18 January 2007 (EST)
    • I think there is clear consensus to delete the images which are unused or which are only used on his user page.
    • I think it's tough from all the unanswered questions. You wrote "The issue is whether or not you want your content under the CC-SA or not; if you do not, I vote to delete the images you've specified". I suspect Jens might understand the cc-bysa by now, but he has not given any clear indication of this nor has he retracted his bogus "Since I am the copyright holder of the pictures I am entitled to refuse" even though he seems to want to contribute to the Fork. Jens also hasn't directly answered questions about whether he wants to contribute these to the fork or whether he meant to nominate his other images. Jens hasn't initiated the VfD process on German Wikivoyage. All despite the fact that he's had plenty of time to write diatribes about the "commercialization" of Wikivoyage whatever that is supposed to mean.
    • So at this point, in light of your understanding of whether or not Jens wants to comply with cc-bysa, what is your vote on this? FWIW, if Jens will say he wishes he never released under cc-bysa and wants his images removed from all cc-bysa sites, I'd be willing to switch to delete. -- (WT-en) Colin 13:15, 18 January 2007 (EST)
      • Given the comment from Jens "I will approach other websites that host my pictures and ask them to take off their website to prevent any confusion in that matter" I'm sticking with a delete vote. It's clear that we don't have to remove any content that has been released under the CC-SA, and there are strong arguments to be made that removing such content is against the spirit of the license (see Mark's SCO argument), but in this case I view it as a courtesy to Jens, who seems to have not understood the ramifications of the CC-SA when he originally uploaded his content. That said, should he upload photos to wikivoyage or any other CC-SA site (which he says he will not do), he has had his chance to claim ignorance of the license and I wouldn't have any opposition to using those pictures here. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:59, 18 January 2007 (EST)
        • For what it's worth, even though I've argued very strenuously that we shouldn't worry about the images coming back from some other source that did vote to delete them in the first place. I still think that Jens doesn't understand the license, or for that matter the goals and non-goals of the project, or even its organisation. I really don't want to take advantage of his ignorance. -- (WT-en) Mark 17:47, 20 January 2007 (EST)
        • Ryan, Jens has not vfd'd his images on WikiVoyage and as far as I can tell they have not been deleted . Also, I do not see a clear consensus to delete the images, except those with that have his family in the photo and those used solely to illustrate his userpage. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:56, 20 January 2007 (EST)
I have asked Wikivoyage to delete the picutures specified above, because I uploaded them onto your (WT) server. So far there is a ongoing discussion but the pics are still there. I will approach other sites once I have dealed with Wikivoyage. I think that is fair!!!
So why do you expect that other sites such as WV and other mirrors delete my pictures in first place.
(WT-en) JensANDMarian 00:08, 21 January 2007 (EST
Can you please just make a clear statement that you didn't understand the license, and that you don't intend for these images to be licensed under the CC by-sa for the whole world? If you do that then I think everybody will agree to delete them. -- (WT-en) Mark 19:15, 20 January 2007 (EST)


  • Keep - as mentioned above, it's one thing to have not understood the license and bring it up soon after uploading, etc... but they don't want to "take their marbles and go home" they want to take their marbles over to another friend's house, it seems. Keep for all the reasons listed above too, over there their images will still be released under cc-by-sa and free to copy back here or elsewhere. And, as said above, it sets a really bad precedent - what happens when the next person wants to remove all their images? Luckily it doesn't happen often, but if more heavy contributors strip away this many pictures then it's damaging to too many pages. The users don't seem to fear what will happen with their images as much as they seem to want to just get even (and as explained above, there's nothing to get even with, and no concrete reason to want to). But yes, delete the personal ones that were meant for their userpage. (WT-en) Cacahuate 02:03, 18 January 2007 (EST)
Here's my proposal to Jens: OK the situation regarding WT ownership changed after you offered your photographs. However, try to understand that this was not some clandestine operation where people were originally lured under false pretenses to offer photographs and articles for free with the aim of capitalizing on them later. It was just the way the operation flowed at that time. However, I can understand that you are not happy that the community to which you originally offered your work changed into a more commercial venture. I think many people felt the same and are watching the situation closely. However, try to understand that it was not a deliberate move to cheat you or others. It was just part of a WT's ongoing development. So, my suggestion to you is that perhaps you could exercise a little generosity and flexibility in the matter. OK, you don't like the way that things changed after you made your contributions, but to save the hassle of removing the photographs and avoid the potential for creating bad feeling, why don't you just leave the photographs that have already been uploaded (barring those that are on your personal page), but refrain from offering others in the future. As I think you will appreciate, deleting your photographs would create a precedent that would be difficult to maintain. You do have a valid point. There is no denying that, but so does the WT community, and I hope that you can also appreciate that. So, to reiterate, I suggest that you register your disapproval of the ways things turned out, but to save a lot of hassle just leave the photographs that you have already been uploaded as they are, but refrain from offering more in the future (unless of course you change your feelings about the domain ownership). Anyway, that's just my suggestion. You are of course free to continue whichever course of action you wish. Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 06:44, 19 January 2007 (EST)
Windhorse, I understand your underlying intentions with the preceding comments, but I do take issue with one line: "the community to which you originally offered your work changed into a more commercial venture." The community is not a commercial venture, only the domain and site are. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:56, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Windhorse, I think that was one of the best comments I have seen regardind this issue. God bless you. (WT-en) JensANDMArian 23:12 , 20 January
Well if you like his comment can you live with his proposal? -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 00:54, 21 January 2007 (EST)
  • We've reached the end of the normal VFD discussion period for this, and I believe the consensus (to the extent that there is one) is not to delete these. However, there may be value in letting the discussion go on, maybe at Project:Copyleft. I propose to move this enormous thing to that page and get on with it. Going once, going twice ... -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 18:45, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Jens: Greetings - thanks for your feedback. Anyway, I hope that you will consider this option and if you do decide to depart WT, then you/we do so with deeper understanding of each others points of view and as friends. However, as I said earlier, you must decide your own course of action. This is only a suggestion. Sapphire: I'm sorry. I used the wrong expression. I was thinking of a village, where a community implies the structures as well as its members - which by strict definition is incorrect. Mea Culpa. (WT-en) WindHorse 01:16, 21 January 2007 (EST)
No problem. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 01:42, 21 January 2007 (EST)

Outcome: Images kept at this time; discussion archived (and may be continuing) at Project:Terms of use. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:50, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/January_2007&oldid=1878593"