Uploaded by Apostrophe (notify | contribs). UE. Used to add the garbage name of an error handler, like this: File:Msglitchname.gif, inline in a sentence. Not only does this look unprofessional, but it looks terrible in some browsers/layouts, and as a cropped screenshot it can't possibly have a fair-use rationale when just "'M" suffices.- - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Diefenbaker (notify | contribs).CV. Listed as promotional, but it wasn't released by the Dodgers. Instead, it was printed in the San Francisco Chronicle, complete with a credit on the left side of the picture. fuzzy510 06:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Rasbak (notify | contribs). A withpermission pic that is rather unusefull given its pixelation and foreign captions.- 68.39.174.238 07:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by User:Ebegoun. The source given is almost certainly not copyright holder. I believe copyright tag is incorrect. Free image Image:Rascal flatts.jpg is available. User notified -Nv8200ptalk 16:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by User:Ebegoun. The source given is almost certainly not copyright holder. I believe copyright tag is incorrect. User notified. -Nv8200ptalk 16:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by User:Ebegoun. The source given is almost certainly not copyright holder. I believe copyright tag is incorrect. Free image Image:Leeann womack.jpg is available. User notified. -Nv8200ptalk 16:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by User:Ebegoun. The source given is almost certainly not copyright holder. I believe copyright tag is incorrect. Free image Image:Lee Ann Womack head.jpg is available. User notified. -Nv8200ptalk 16:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GOER (notify | contribs). OR, absentee uploader and insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by GOER (notify | contribs). OR, image is from the Hebrew Wikipedia where I'm sure it has a free license, but it is not needed on en BigDT 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cornell010 (notify | contribs). I can't find the exact page, but almost certainly a CV from somewhere at [3]BigDT 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cornell010 (notify | contribs). Source URL gives no indication they have released their images under the GFDL BigDT 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cornell010 (notify | contribs). Source URL gives no indication they have released their images under the GFDL BigDT 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cornell010 (notify | contribs). Source URL gives no indication they have released their images under the GFDL BigDT 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cornell010 (notify | contribs). Source URL gives no indication they have released their images under the GFDL BigDT 18:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cornell010 (notify | contribs). Source URL gives no indication they have released their images under the GFDL - plus the image is watermarked BigDT 18:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by User talk:Berkut (notify | contribs). It is inaccurate and in probable violation of licensing terms. Thailand_coa.png is not Thailand's coat of arms. Pull out your passports and your official documents and compare. The real Tra Khrut should have sharp wing tips - the wingtips of Thailand_coa.png are blunt. The real Khrut should have 7 external wing-tips per side - there are 9 wingtips in Thailand_coa.png. The real Khrut should be wearing wearing what looks like a high belt which connects to its necklace - the one in Thailand_coa.png is only wearing a necklace. The fingertips of the real Khrut should be pointed directly at the apex of its Monthien (hat) at 45 and 225 degree angles - the one in Thailand_coa.png has fingers that are horizontal. The tail design is distinctly different. The source attributed to Thailand_coa.png is a pay site (vector-images.com), and it seems that the bitmap demo image was copied from the site without requesting or receiving a free license. Patiwat 18:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, but it already exists on Commons. Raster images from vector-images.com can be used freely, BTW. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cacetudo (notify | contribs).UE. Image has no educational value as everyone already knows what human fecal matter looks like. Mace 22:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? Everyone knows what men and women look like, too, but we have images on those pages. Besides, this is a Commons image; there's nothing we can do to delete it on Wikipedia. =) Powers 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I will admit to a slight bias in my opinion, because I created and uploaded this image, I do believe that this it is a perfect illustration of healthy, normal human feces and thus has encyclopedic value. A previous image similar to this was shown to be a Photoshop fake. This one is hi-res, free, and shows several aspects of the subject quite well (the mucus coating, coloring, and partially undigested food, for example; see the commons image page for more information). There has been plenty of debate on the issue of whether or not to include pictures like these in relevant articles, and the consensus was that it was acceptable as long as they were not overly large (after all, one can see the large high-res version on the image page) and were placed "below the fold." The latter ensures that a user who clicks on the "random page" link while at work etc. is not surprised with an image that they may not want to see. I do believe, however, that the (paraphrased) argument "everyone knows what feces looks like, so there's no need for a picture" is specious. This is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore there are no space constraints. In my view, any article deserves an appropriate visual illustration such as the one we are debating. Should that image be potentially offensive, I believe it should be subject to the placement guidelines I mentioned above. Have a look at the articles on meconium, penis, erection, vagina, vulva, anus, breast, and nipple, for other examples. Also, why did you (Mace) re-create this image on the English wikipedia? It was moved to the commons and deleted. --Cacetudo 23:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above.. and well its a good picture of feces... --Cliffb 00:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this image, obviously. The only people on earth who don't know what poop looks like are blind people. There are no legitimate usages of this picture and it will only be used to troll. — GT 03:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GT. I could imagine some validity to keeping it in an image library, but the current uses are juvenile exhibitionism and it does look like a troll magnet. Pardon the expression but there's no need to rub our noses in this. Phr (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you (GT or PHR) actually read what I (or Powers) wrote above before you wrote this? Perhaps you would care to offer a counter-argument rather that restating the original position? Perhaps you haven't noticed the image in the Human feces article? Can you give an example of this image being used to 'troll'? --Cacetudo 11:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read all that, and the discussion pages for both the feces and human feces articles. It was your remarks on those pages that convinced me that this image should be deleted. Whatever marginal intrinsic value it might have is not enough for its presence to be doing the encyclopedia any net good. Wikipedia might not be paper, but as the saying goes, it is also not toilet paper. Phr (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So is it your position that (some or all of) the images illustrating the articles mentioned above (meconium, penis, erection, vagina, vulva, anus, breast, nipple, men, and women) should be deleted as well? Or that any image potentially offensive to some should be removed? I thank you for your response to my question and I will take you at your word that you read the discussions here and elsewhere. However, again, can you offer a counter-argument or example of this image being used to troll, or are you simply registering your opinion on the worthiness of this image? I respect your opinion, but it would be worth a lot more if you could back it up with a reasonable argument. --Cacetudo 14:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other images are irrelevant to this IfD which is about one specific image. I've explained enough already what I think should be done with this image, and I don't see any point in discussing it further. Phr (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep prefectly good image for illustrating a perfectly natural bodily function. ViridaeTalk 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super Extreme Keep--FireSpike 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Query: If, by some chance, the consensus is to delete this image, what are we going to do? Go over to Commons en masse and demand they delete it? Powers 23:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should not be censored. We have an abundance of other "rude" or "taboo" images but we still keep them. Also, plenty of people knows what apples look like or what trees look like, we still have images for them. And yes, we do have images for penis and vagina which everyone knows what they look like anyway and both set of images get thrown around by trolls. However, you don't see them getting marked for deletion do you? Furthermore, even if the concensus is "Delete", the most one can do is remove the image from the article as Wikipedia concensus holds no juristiction over commons' contents. --龙★Ukdragon37★翔talk 13:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the image was first uploaded to EN and then uploaded to commons, thus the confusion. So this particular debate is moot. I personally don't generally use Wikipedia to read articles of the nature of this image (i.e. magnets for vandals and trolls), so I just hope that this image doesn't turn up as vandalism on the articles that I do read. — GT 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, legitimate fair use rationale for "history of Google" at least. Copyright holders don't get to decide whether something is fair use or not. That's the point of fair use. Phr (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the Fair Use Criteria are met here, specifically The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.. Plus, this being "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", it seems to me that using copyrighted images against the owner's specific request is totally antithetical to that. — GT 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Not necessary for showing the variations of the Google logo, as one is already there in Google logo to explain the Joan Miró controversy. howcheng {chat} 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
