Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Korath (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 1 April 2005 (→March 30: Crosswiki redirects seem to be fixed. Huzzah!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems. For licensing issues that are not copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.

Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised. Such images should be dealt with as soon as possible.

As per the speedy deletion policy, administrators can delete on sight "[a]n image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else on Wikipedia and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained." This does not include visually similar pictures, such as PNG versions of JPEG images. Such images should be listed here instead. For the time being, this also does not include photos copied to Wikimedia Commons.

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- List of empty images

Listing instructions

To list an image on this page, simply add it to the bottom. If it is an obsoleted image, please also list the image that it is obsoleted by, in the format "[[:Image:Foo.jpg]] - obsoleted by [[:Image:Bar.jpg]]".

Please always inform the uploader of the image that their image is at imminent risk of deletion by adding a message to their talk page.

If you remove an image from an article, you should list the article from which you removed it, so there can be effective community review of whether or not the image should be deleted. This is necessary because image pages do not remember the articles the images used to be used on.

Add the following message to the top of any image page listed on this page: {{ifd}}, which shows up as:

This template should only be used on file pages.

On this page, state the reasons that the image should be deleted. Some people like to use the following abbreviations:

  • AB (absentee uploader} - the uploader has not contributed to Wikipedia in a long time, and is probably unavailable to answer questions.
  • CV (copyright violation) - the image might be used in violation of copyright, or else there is no copyright info provided
  • NE (not English) - the image contains text that is not English.
  • OB (obsolete) - the image has been replaced by a better version.
  • OF (out-of-focus) - the image is blurry.
  • OR (orphan) - the image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • UE (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia
  • UV (unverified) - image does not contain source and copyright info; tagged with {{unverified}}

Please sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~

Instructions for administrators

Before deleting an image, please make sure of the following:

  • That the image has been listed on this page for one week or longer
  • That the uploader has been alerted on their talk page to the imminent deletion of their image
  • That no objections to its deletion have been raised, or that a consensus to delete has been reached
  • That the image is not used in any articles (note that "What links here" is not currently reliable)
  • That the image is not currently being processed as a copyright violation

To delete an image, open the image page and click either the link, "Delete all revisions of this image" or the usual "delete" tab at the top of the page. Either will work. (This was not the case in previous versions of the software.)

Also, please specify the reason for deletion in your deletion summary. Examples:

Orphaned and obsoleted, listed on IfD since (date)
Orphaned copyright violation, listed on IfD since (date)

If you delete an image listed on this page, please remove the listing and note your removal in your edit summary.

When deleting an image because an identically named image exists in the Wikimedia Commons, make sure to preserve the image description. Otherwise the image will still be shown but the page will also say "This page does not exist".

The "What links here" tool is broken for images. Do not rely on what links here to determine whether an image is unused! You must use the Wikipedia internal search engine, with all namespaces selected, to confirm that an image is unused in the English-language Wikipedia. You should also be alert for signs that the image is used in other languages, some of which use external links to include images from en. See BUG 85 for the current status of this issue.

Listings older than one week

These need additional information or more opinions before consensus can be determined.

  • Unverified Orphans have been moved to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/Unverified orphans. See the discussion on the talk page there for details on what is to be done with them. Please list unverified orphans on that page. If unverified orphans are listed on this page (WP:IFD), then instead of deleting unverified orphans from here at the end of the 7-day period, they should be moved to the unverified orphans page instead. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:58, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Listings less than one week old

March 25

Comment: Would you please check there's any incoming pages that link to this image, and change them to use the image at commons, unless the file at Commons is as same as Wikipedia? --Shinjiman 13:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've reviewed those articles. The usage shown is due to a template that has been changed, it is not real. Due to the nature of this, I would have to dummy edit each and every article so that the new image in the template is seen to bring the count to zero. -- Egil 18:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The Commons version has no copyright tag. What is the "permission", exactly? Also, since the title changed, you have to make it obvious the old one is an orphan. It'll only take a few minutes. Just go through the list, and at each page click "edit this page", then "save page". I went ahead and did a null edit on all the pages that used the image. dbenbenn | talk 23:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Objection withdrawn; the copyright has been clarified. dbenbenn | talk 04:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 26

March 27

Keep--Cyberjunkie 15:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
With a perfectly good PD version of the image, can we even make a fair use argument? I don't think so. Delete. dbenbenn | talk 00:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's not perfectly good, it's a decade out of date and has a garish horrible background. I don't believe for a second that the first image is actually PD at all, it looks like a House of Representatives-standard image, which means that it would be available under the terms of Crown Copyright, exactly like the other is (I don't know what the source is, but I think it may be an out-of-date version of the Prime Ministerial website). Just because Adam has neglected to add the right tag, we can't delete this excellent and quite legal image. Slac speak up! 10:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

March 28

You may have a problem with your browser. My browser (Firefox 1.0.2) shows it correctly. Keep, if the problem is not common, otherwise convert to gif or jpg. It should be linked to Haughton impact crater article. Delete. Seems to be a duplicate of Image:DevonIsl.png. --Jyril 19:31, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

March 29

Delete. I uploaded the original and agree that the new copy is better. Sayeth 16:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

March 30

  • Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg. Essentially indistinguishable from the previously voted on autofellatio image. The autofellatio page already contains a drawn image which should satisfy any percieved need for visual depiction; this picture is just being used for vandalism. --MC MasterChef 01:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. The previous image Autofellatio.jpg had copyvio issues. This has none. The previous image was also being used by the autofellatio vandal nonstop, which spawned a raving lynchmob of victims. This picture is not being used in vandalism, and hopefully it won't now that the linking compromise (linking to the image from autofellatio rather than displaying it inline) has been more or less settled. In any case, vandalism is not a valid reason to start deleting material.
    This picture is also of better quality and illustrates the subject perfectly. The only reason (that I can see) that people can argue to delete this is personal distaste. Well, Wikipedia is not censored for minors and it may contain material that, while objectionable to some, nonetheless serves a purpose in the appropriate article. And for goodness sakes, it's even linked from the article. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Well, the picture was used in vandalism this evening (EST) (you can see my talk page history, for one), and I guess I fail to understand the compelling need for a high-resolution, close-up photo shot of what is already perfectly well illustrated, in a less inflammatory manner, there on the existing article page. --MC MasterChef 01:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. In any case, that's bogus to say that it should be deleted because of vandalism. I assume it was using the double-redirect trick – that's a problem with the wiki, and one that I think has been brought up with the appropriate people and will hopefully be fixed soon(ish). We can't just start deleting material that vandals use. Out of context (especially bombing a user talk page), many pictures may well prove to be offensive to the average user. The question really comes down to merits of the photograph. It is a clear, accurate depiction of the subject. I don't think it's any more graphic than the subject necessitates. Should there be no image at all, then? I tend to disagree very strongly with that kind of censorship. The photo is much more informative than the illustration (although I suppose that's the point some are making – that it's too informative).
    I think a better solution might be to look into suppressing the image when it's linked to that way the vandal does it, if that's possible. (I believe some people brought it up at the last IfD but never followed it up). If it's possible to shrink the image here but not alter the file (which one can view directly here), I think that would be a good idea. If all else fails, maybe shrinking the image would be an apt compromise.
    I'm just saying, though, that many people voted to delete autofellatio.jpg from a sort of cost-benefit analysis pov, which I think can be solved creatively instead of deleting the image outright. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Uploaded only to prove a point. There is already a PD image of the subject. Thuresson 01:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure that's patently false. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Assuming that there are no copyright problems, this image is fine. Rhobite 02:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. A copyright-problem-free photograph displaying autofellatio is encyclopedic. It's better than the copyrighted image that was just deleted, and more vivid than the line drawing currently displayed inline. It is {{linkimage}}-ed too. Image:Adolf.Hitler.jpg has been recently used to vandalize user pages—should we move to delete that too? —Markaci 2005-03-30 T 02:28 Z
    • Keep. The image is free of copyright problems, and illustrates the subject matter quite well. --Carnildo 02:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete as much as I dislike censorship, this is bound to be long term unusable by its copyright. Find me a legitimate GFDL or CC-by-SA or PD photo and I'll vote keep on it.  ALKIVAR™ 02:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Can you surmise for us how you think this image might become unusable when "anyone can use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder and image provider are credited"? This is actually less restrictive than a GFDL and CC-by-SA licence as far as I can tell. —Christiaan 08:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. This time I gotta disagree with you, Alkivar my dearest. —RaD Man (talk) 07:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Isn't really needed. Will harm Wikipedia more than it helps. The image has no place in an encyclopedia. Still, I appreciate Christiaan's efforts to get permission for this image. --Duk 02:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      No image is really needed Duk, and it's not a question of need, its a question of encyclopedic value, which it clearly is. I think the opposite will be the case in terms of harm done if this image is deleted on grounds of self-censorship to appease a few people who are offended by bodily function. —Christiaan 09:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I'm not offended by bodily function, and don't have a problem with this image personally. My vote is based on what I think is best for Wikipedia, for a bunch of different reasons. Please don't ascribe incorrect motivations to my vote that belittle it. Doing so betrays an intolerance for other people's views. --Duk 22:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. The vandalism can easily be converted, plus this is a better example of the technique in question than the first photo. Zscout370 02:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, since copyright seems to be solved. I can't see that use in vandalism is a valid reason to delete. — Asbestos | Talk 08:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. As I noted earlier about the previous picture, "seeing is believing." Quite a few people are skeptical that autofellatio is possible, and that photo is pretty convincing. The drawing is insufficient. Just as a picture is worth 1,000 words, a photo is worth about 50 drawings. The vandalism argument is untenable, and not worth further consideration. LizardWizard 08:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think these efforts to "purify" WIkipedia are becoming a real problem. I would hope enough Wikipedians have the sense to vote keep for this image, but I really think another solution needs to be found to negate the urge of some Wikipedians to involve themselves in self-censorship. A picture of a man sucking his own penis in an article about a man sucking his own penis is of encyclopedic value. To argue otherwise appears very disengenious to me, so I at least appreciate those who are arguing in favour of self-censorship; at least then we can have an honest debate. —Christiaan 08:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • There is already a PD image of a man sucking his penis, hence a non-PD image is unnecessary. Thuresson 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Uh, then, perhaps you might point us to this mysterious picture? —Christiaan 21:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I believe everyone involved have seen the mysterious picture before. Thuresson 23:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Sadily the drawing isn't a sufficent replacement. We could have a drawing of the penis going in one ear and out the other just as easily... A photograph is much better for demonstrating that this really is possibleGmaxwell 13:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good illustration for the article. Noisy | Talk 09:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep If I start using this image Image:George-W-Bush.jpeg to vandalise people's user pages, can I get it nominated for deletion? Please? Zeromacnoo 14:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: *Sigh* – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep --SPUI (talk) 16:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep--what Timbo said. Exploding Boy 17:21, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete-- unencyclopedic vandal magnet. Firebug 17:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Note: This vote was user's 11th edit. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Timbo- Does this make my comment invalid? What is the required minimum number of edits before one is qualified to comment on a request for deletion? Firebug 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      No, not as such. If there is a great number of votes from usernames with few edits, though, it's suspicious. I think that may or may not have been the case in the last autofellatio.jpg vote, and I'm not sure if they were discounted or not. (It's up to the discretion of the admin doing the deleting). I wouldn't be worried about your vote not being counted, though. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - we have more important things to do than be voting for pictures which are claimed to be "vandal magnets" but are only due to being in the limelight. --Oldak Quill 17:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Perhaps being on Wikipedia for all of three weeks and having recieved nothing but vandalism on my talk page thus far has had the effect of setting me a little on edge. The vote appears to be going fairly strongly in favor of keeping the picture; I still don't understand the need for it, really, but assuming the consensus persists that it is a necessary and vital contribution to the article, would it at least be possible for someone to look into the feasibility of, say, blocking the ability to redirect a page straight to an image, or maybe blocking the use of redirects in the User_Talk namespace? I'm sure there's some way those could be used in a proper and constructive manner, but nothing comes to mind as of right now. I understand that the acts of a few vandals shouldn't be seen as representative of the Wikipedia community at large, and I'm really not going to be crying myself to sleep after being redirected to a picture of a naked man, but it's still not especially welcoming, y'know? That's all I've got to say. --MC MasterChef 19:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Are there any situations where it is legitimate to redirect a page straight to a picture file? If not, then that ability should be disabled. If there are legitimate uses for this feature, then a short blacklist should be added to prevent redirection to certain specific pictures that have been commonly used for vandalism. Firebug 19:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      That sounds like the thing to do. Whether or not we keep this exact picture, the very sneaky way the vandal uses it will remain. We can't guarantee that wikipedia will purge itself of every picture that could be construed as offensive when a user talk page blind-redirects to it. Just as we don't want usernames like Adolf Hitler or butt sex even though they are appropriate articles (see Wikipedia:Username), we also don't want people being redirected to pictures out of their encyclopedic context. This is a vandalism problem, and it is bigger than one picture.
      I could be wrong, but it seems the only thing we're doing to combat this douchebag vandal is to block the usernames he creates (after he's bombed various user talk pages). What we need to do, IMHO, is block by the vandal's IP (if that's feasible) as well as investigate the creative options I mentioned above (as well as any others). TIMBO (T A L K) 20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • DELETE - Ironically I who actually abhor the pornography laws that exist, have become involved in issues that involve prudent constraint against excesses of those who seem oblivious to much more major dangers to human freedom, as long as they can delight in congratulating themselves with glee at imposing the burdens of their peculiar tastes and sensibilities (or lack of them) upon everyone else involved in this project.
      When the previous image was being voted upon I stated: "I am against IMPOSING censorship upon others who seek to publish such things through their own resources, but this is an internal matter of the Wikimedia projects, and a policy of greater consideration and discretion than this image represents is definitely appropriate. To say that this image is in any way "necessary", or that including this image serves the overall purposes of an Encyclopedia project is ABSURD. An adult would be arrested, thrown into jail, and accused of pedophilia in many countries if he or she were to show this image to a minor— it thus provides an apparently legitimate excuse for all manner of institutions or governments and the herd majorities of most societies to seek to ban or constrain access to Wikipedia." That argument still stands. I also quoted George Washington's statement: Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
      I repeat: I am NOT a person who supports legal censorship of others, BECAUSE I am a person who is considerate of others differences, and does not seek to impose my tastes upon others, but I DO support prudent self-censorship, that takes into consideration one's audience, which is in this case potentially most of the world.
      There are adequate illustrations, and there are links to extensive Google search for web images on the Autofellatio page. I do not oppose them because it keeps the project itself relatively safe from becoming quite so easy a target of the close-minded.
      The picture doesn't shock you, it doesn't shock me, but it irritates me profoundly that there are people who have so little regard for many of the much larger issues that are more important to address in these times, and so willfully oblivious to the reality of the vast majority of people who would be shocked at its inclusion in an Encyclopedia that aims to be a major educational tool for everyone, including young children. Can you not see that such foolishness, makes you among the very best allies of the very worst fools that you rail against? You provide a legitimate-seeming excuse for all manner of the "nanny-minded" fools who would simply use this as an opportunity to to exclude or restrict access to ALL of the information in the Wikipedia, because a few short-sighted people insist on trying to including such images as this. The reaction of the many people and groups to which you give legal ammunition to not only to seek to ban Wikipedia from many places where they have influence, but even perhaps to prosecute it under such Pornography laws as DO exist. I oppose these laws, I consider them stupid, and at least as much an agency for evil as most of the excesses that they oppose...but they are very real, and very pervasive, and very dangerous to many people who do NOT have the convenient safeguard of internet anonymity, including the person who has been the provider of the Wikimedia servers, whose will and stated opposition you, who have benefited from his generosity, are deliberately snubbing. Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading, and for the sake of those most truly devoted to spreading it. ~ Achilles 19:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Delete this for the sake of the vast amount of truly important information that it would create a barrier to spreading.What a jolly good point! Let's delete *everything* that the governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and North Korea wouldn't want us to have--otherwise we're creating a barrier to spreading our information! No? Thought not. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      I'd be interested to hear more about these laws which could be used to prosecute wikipedia. I'm aware of no such U.S. law – perhaps because minors could come to wikipedia and see it? We do have a rather comprehensive disclaimer, and Wikipedia isn't (or shouldn't, if we have any commitment to an un-bowdlerized encyclopedia) censored for minors. If a child unsupervised enough to come to the internet, look up wikipedia, look up autofellatio, and click on the link to this image, he might as well go to porn sites and look up much more pictures and movies.
      You bring up a point: why doesn't someone host this picture privately, and why isn't the google image search link sufficient? I think there are compelling reasons to have it on wikipedia, if we decide that linking to any such image in any way is appropriate for the article (which I think most who are actually involved in this discussion agree with). We can control the way it is presented - i.e. with no popups, spyware, and other nasty stuff that one can get by going to actual porn sites. That's why it baffled me that we replaced a link to a privately-hosted autofellatio jpg image with the google link. If you click on many of those links google gives you, there's no telling what kind of crap you'll get. It seems almost irresponsible to me for us to just direct the reader to the google search and be done with it, even though we know we're pointing them to the sneaky tricks that porn sites use.
      The google link notwithstanding, we can't even gaurantee that a privately-hosted picture we link to will be there tomorrow. It might even be another picture. Hosting the picture on wikipedia and linking to it from autofellatio, we can gaurantee quality, appropriateness, and context.
      The vandalism is a problem, but as I've said in my above comments, I think we can (or should) deal with that without deleting material from wikipedia outright. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      Achilles, I'm glad you at least admit to being in favour of self-censorship. At least we can now have an honest debate. I am wholly against self-censorship but what I don't have a problem with is end-user self-censorship. You might like to take a look at a possible solution for this: meta:End-user image suppression. —Christiaan 21:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Use as vandalism is no reason to delete an image. (I know how this goes; the main image on my user page was deleted after a vandal started randomly slinging it around.) Double redirection should be fixed eventually, per bugs 850 and 1656.

      In the meantime, however, the damage dealt to the project by double-redirecting user talk pages -- not to mention random pages on less populated wikis, like tlh:quvwI'pu' tIQHa' yeSuwa' 'IHrIStoS lalDan -- is very real. Shortly before Autofellatio.jpg was deleted, Oven Fresh (I think) used some jiggery-pokery with CSS to move the image description over the image itself, with a link from there to the image. At least until the bug is fixed, it seems reasonable to reinstate this on the current image. —Korath (Talk) 20:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) Apparently, it's fixed now. Huzzah! —Korath (Talk) 07:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

    • Keep. No copyright problems, and a picture of a good looking man having about as much fun as a man can have without actually being on the inside of Kylie Minogue's knickers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Having wasted five hours today in undoing vandalism to cy.wikipedia when over 60 articles were moved and/or renamed and/or edited to point to this image, I have no tolerance for it whatsoever and would cheerfully suspend the vandal from a great height by a very thin wire wrapped round his testicles. This image is a vandal magnet, as are any other images containing the string "autofellatio" which I strongly believe should be deleted on sight. The drawing which is currently at the autofellatio article is perfectly adequate. It's all very well for you to adopt an ultraliberal policy on en:, but this is having serious consequences for smaller language wikipedias which do not have someone permanently watching recent changes. -- Arwel 00:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, for God's sake. Wikipedia is not a daring avant-gard "mind liberation" exercise. Do the high-volume, repeated, vandal attacks on newbies mean nothing to you people? The point of illustrating clitoris is that it's very difficult to get a good idea of what a clitoris looks like without seeing one. The concept of autofellatio is self-explanatory. The usefulness of this photo is nil; the damages the it has caused are massive. Slac speak up! 00:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Dubious encyclopedic value, only use is to make a point by an absurd action, and its value that can be garnered by a simple description -- can't wait for an image depicting pedophilia or murder to come up next, such an image would be equally absurd as this one. --Wgfinley 01:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, an image depicting murder or genocide or the like would be completely unencyclopedic and offensive. Thank God we have none of those. LizardWizard 04:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • You're absolutely right, poignant photographs depicting historic events certainly are on the same level of an image from a porn site of someone orally gratifying himself. As I said before, the absurdity of the arguments for this are truly astounding. To even suggest these two things as somehow comparable is an insult to those who were slaughtered by Pol Pot and his regime. --Wgfinley 05:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep The image shows the possibility of the act in a way the drawing is unable. Is someone feels the image is too pornographic, then they can add a more clinical image, but since we do not have something better, and the image furthers the goal of the article to educate, we should keep it. Removing it due to vandalism would be pointless,as vandals could just upload another image. Removing it because it offends is imposing a point of view about what is offensive and what isn't. Gmaxwell 13:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This really is the wrong place for discussing this image. The image is not an orphan and the if's and how's of using it should be discussed at Talk:Autofellatio, not here. Thuresson 19:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mike H 20:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

March 31

  • Image:Kampo.jpg - OR cohesion ☎ 05:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Tuning_fork_diagram.gif. Former version UV, and OB by Image:Hubblescheme.png in the sole article galaxy classification. The new version is used in other articles as well, since earlier. The new version is Creative Commons work and of higher resolution for easier galaxy identification, while the former version has also been an image with unknown source for some time now, with no clarification on its status. --Jugalator 02:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:Margot Wallstrom.jpg, (Margot Wallström), OR, AB, Thuresson 03:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Image:MoneyJews.jpg
    • Delete this offensive image derived from Nazi propaganda that does not belong on Wikipedia. IZAK 09:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I see that this is here precisely to display it in the article on antisemitism, as an illustration of propaganda. If it is to be in Wikipedia, it should be re-uploaded at a less offensive name, one that overtly indicates that it is Nazi propaganda. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep I am the uploader, and this image was specifically uploaded and used to describe Nazi anti-Semitism. Of course it's offensive, all images in the Anti-Semitism article are offensive. That's why it's important to show them for what they are. What's next, are we to go to through all the holocaust museums of the world and remove Nazi images? They're there for a very good reason. The inclusion of the image was subject to extensive Talk discussion, and is there by consensus. Also I would like to object that the user who is advocating deletion did not notify me, I heard about it from another. --AladdinSE 10:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Objection: The above statement "Also I would like to object that the user who is advocating deletion did not notify me..." is INCORRECT! I first listed this image for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion[3] then I chose to contact User:Jmabel see [4] who I know could be trusted to add a reliable NPOV perspective to my nomination of this image for deletion, which he did [5] and [6]. I subsequently proceeded to User talk:AladdinSE with notification of "Nazi "image" for deletion" see [7] but found that User:Jmabel had already preempted me by 8 or 9 minutes see [8] (i.e. Jmabel posted at 05:38, 31 Mar 2005 and I posted at 05:47, 31 Mar 2005) see timing at [9] on User:AladdinSE's discussion page. Unfortunately, User:AladdinSE then erased and edited my notification to him [10] making it "seem" like my notification to him was done as a "response" to Jmabel when in fact I was placing my own heading of "Nazi "image" for deletion" as I had done, see [11]. After I objected to User:AladdinSE editing my notification [12] he responded with "ONE HEADING PER ISSUE PLEASE, KEEP MY TALK PAGE NEAT" [13] and again removed my original notification to him, and making it seem that I was "tailing along" with User:Jmabel and expressing "suspicions" of my motives [14]. All a rather silly excercise and waste of time in order to "score non-existent and nonsensical points" when the real issue is my objection to his introduction of an offensive Nazi "image" and his rather tepid response that this was all "NPOV" stuff and "no need to worry" Sheesh!. IZAK 04:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Response: This is false. I never edited IZAK's comment on my Talk page, which the edit History will prove. IZAK's "notification" on my page was made after I was already notified by Jmabel, and yet IZAK ignored the previous notification and tried to enter a duplicate one, with a new section title, completely ignoring the fact that I had already been notified by someone else. If IZAK wanted to enter a second notification after Jmabel's, he/she should have entered it under the already created heading. Creating a new heading was clearly an attempt to try and obscure the fact that IZAK did was not the one who first notified me. The only "edit" I did was to remove the redundant second heading, and turn the massive picture that was placed o my Talk page in to a thumbnail. No notification was ever removed. The edit history [15] is there for anyone who wants to study it. --AladdinSE 06:42, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, lest we forget. Kim Bruning 10:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, of course; name is less than ideal. — Davenbelle 11:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, please re-name file (eg. anti-semitism-example.jpg) --YUL89YYZ 13:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Please rename the file to make it clear that it is an example of anti-Semitism. RK 15:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, most definitely encyclopedic, but please rename it NPOVish. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Must be renamed. --171.159.192.10 14:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep obviously needs to be renamed --Wgfinley 16:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. In the immediate aftermath of World War II much of this material was banished from sight. This is a relatively inoffensive drawing (there many that were many that were much worse and therefore may be more representative of that historical period.) Listening to the BBC World Service over PRI on a Dallas radio station the other night, I learned that Henry Ford's The International Jew is openly on sale in 2005 next to Hitler's own book in Beirut. Therefore it is no small wonder that some very silly ideas are still floating around in the Middle East. After all, Henry Ford founded the American Ford Motor Car Company and Henry Ford was the only American to be singled out by Hitler in his book for praise: for his hatred of the Jews. In other words America is seen to be talking out of both sides of its mouth in the Middle East - supporting Israel and writing and publishing foundational antisemitic works. But Americans hardly ever hear this or know what it means. (When did you last read the books of Hitler and Ford?) So I believe that it good to keep such illustrations -providing that ORIGINAL captions are used with GOOD translations of the original. This keeps all of this in its historical and educational perspective. Censorship of any kind is anti-knowledge and the beginning road to the kind of horrors that the likes of Hitler and his mentor Henry Ford brought about by the Holocaust. The survival of Judaism as a belief proves that gas chambers and bullets cannot kill ideas and the survival of pathetic neo-Nazis proves that censorship only fosters more hate. Only open education (such as Wikipedia) can combat the evils that human beings conceive and try to put into practice, because open education is the light that illuminates the filth that must be cleaned up. However, to pretend that there never was any filth is absurd in and of itself. MPLX/MH 16:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Good example of virulent Nazi anti-Semitism. The way to combat anti-Semitism is not to hide it, but to shine a light on it. However, the image must be renamed something more NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep under npov name. Something like 'Antisemetic stereotype of Jews' gidonb 19:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, but rename. The use of the image in an article on anti-Semitism is legitimate, but the name of the image could be considered offensive if taken in isolation (always a possibility with vandals). Rename it to indicate that it is an example of anti-Semitic propaganda. Firebug 21:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral This page is intended for discussing images that are not in use or images that are obsolete. This image is in use and the use of this image should be discussed at Talk:Anti-Semitism, not here. Thuresson 19:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Objection: (1) The opening sentence of this page states: "This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded." It (and it's name as agreed upon above) is offensive and thus it is unneeded on Wikipedia. (2)This image is probably also "UE (unencyclopedic) - the image doesn't seem likely to be useful in an encyclopedia" because it discriminates and promotes hate! IZAK 03:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Question: I honestly did not understand IZAK's message. It made no sense at all to me. What was it referring to? As for the expanation and the caption on the illustration, it reads: "An example of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda for German children from Julius Streicher's Der Giftpilz (The Toadstool or The Poisonous Mushroom) (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/thumb.htm), Nuremberg, Stürmerverlag, 1938.) The caption reads: "The God of the Jews is Money. And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes. He will not rest until he can sit on the largest sack of money, until he becomes the King of Money." What is wrong with that? Obviously the illustration is of historic importance but what I don't get is that SOMEONE still claims COPYRIGHT of this crap! Now that is the story. Does this mean that someone legitimately bought the copyright or does it mean that heirs of the original copyright still claim copyright? Who are these Nazis or neo-Nazis? It is for all of these reasons that this rubbish needs to see light of day. FEAR always helps the oppressor! Daylight and education always makes fear disappear! MPLX/MH 04:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • MPLX: when you say: "...The caption reads: "The God of the Jews is Money. And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes. He will not rest until he can sit on the largest sack of money, until he becomes the King of Money." What is wrong with that?..." is itself a huge problem that reveals great insensitivity to the Persecution of the Jews. You also underestimate the guile of those who want to sneak-in Anti-Semitism into Wikipedia "under the radar" while hiding behind all sorts of lame "NPOV" arguments and excuses. There is no room for messages of hate on Wikipedia in whatever guise they may come to us. What is so hard to grasp about that? IZAK 04:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep/Rename. What Jayjg said. I have an authoritative (IDF Publishers) encyclopedia which has that image, and ones much, much worse. El_C 04:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. This image is linked from only a user page. Is there a standing Wikipedia policy on whether or not it is inappropriate for users to have nude photos on their user pages? Firebug 06:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This was previously in the Charlotte Ross article itself. Check the edit history in the article. I have since reverted to another screencap (sans ass). Delete. Mike H 06:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

April 1

    • Keep. This image is in use in an article and is not an orphan nor meets the requirements for deletion. What's more it's inclusion in the article on the Arab-Israeli conflict was subject to extensive consensus in Talk. --AladdinSE 06:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

End
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion&oldid=11752149"