Image:Tim_Starling.jpg CV -- "Community-only" license is incompatible with Wikipedia use. Jkelly 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete in accordance with Tim's wishes. I think at the time he uploaded it the upload text required him to submit it under the GFDL. Deleting it is a lot more polite than forcing a relicense. --Gmaxwell 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be retained as it is - it meets the requirements for user pages, which have long not been subject to the policies applying to the encyclopedia. Worth remembering the purpose here - the encyclopedia is what we want redistributable, not the user pages (or talk pages, for that matter). Jamesday 17:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Community only licensing is bad precedent and serves to contaminate the dumps with material that is unusable by reusers. Dragons flight 17:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change license or Delete. We've been down this road before and it was decided that images on user pages were not exempt from being free with no restrictions for use. -Nv8200ptalk 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change license or Delete. From what I can fathom, the overall licensing issue needs to be settled. All contributions to Wikipedia need to be covered by a single core license which can't be watered down by previous or subsequent additional licenses. --Go for it! 03:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slippery slope, the requirement for free licensing helps to ensure that Wikipedia doesn't turn into a personal photo hosting service.--Eloquence* 14:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care. However, it might be a good idea to develop a new idea for images used on user pages. Personally, I think an image of the user it represents adds a personal touch that can't be duplicated. I'd also agree that a significant number of people may not want their picture plastered everywhere, and so may not want to widely license it. The one thing I'd say as a possible path to an answer would be to clearly mark such images, if they aren't deleted, so they can be clearly identified at such time a policy is decided. It seems clear to me from reading about it that this is an issue that has come up repeatedly, and will likely continue to come up. --Ron 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
