Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 11[edit]

Uploaded by Ted87 (notify). Free alternative, no fair use. Arniep 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How isn't this fair use? Ted87 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it needs a source, and we need to know the copyright as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll try to find it. In the mean time ya'll debate whether it stays or goes. Ted87 04:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by NickHolian (notify). UE, OR, and WP:NOT- —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Tittybangbang (notify). CV, UE; does not meet fair-use criteria since it's not low-resolution and not useful for critical commentary (see Stoned in Love). Unint 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Tittybangbang (notify). CV, UE; does not meet fair-use criteria since it's not low-resolution and not useful for critical commentary (see Stoned in Love). Unint 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Tittybangbang (notify). CV, UE; does not meet fair-use criteria since it's not low-resolution and not useful for critical commentary (see Stoned in Love). Unint 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Tittybangbang (notify). CV, UE; does not meet fair-use criteria since it's not low-resolution and not useful for critical commentary (see Stoned in Love). Unint 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The four above has been relisted as the uploader was not notified.
Uploaded by Tittybangbang (notify). OR; duplicate of StonedInLoveVid.jpg listed above. Unint 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ladida (notify). Copy vio wireimage agency image. Arniep 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Small crucifix anim.gif (talk | delete)
    Uploaded by Cyde (notify). Unencyclopedic, was used in an edit war on Template:User christian and also an orphan (even although under a GFDL license). Consideribly offensive for Chrisitans Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Last I checked "being offensive to a religion" isn't a deletion criteria. This isn't Iran. Although I personally don't see this as offensive, so obviously offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. The image is no longer orphaned; I'm using it on my userboxes page, where I substed in my preferred version of the Christian userbox. --Cyde Weys 19:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there an explanation of the offensiveness of this anywhere? As far as I can tell it's only being objected to by users who believe they personally own parts of the template namespace. --Gmaxwell 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed there is. Such a depiction demeans the nature of the cross and trivialises its signifcance to Christians. Moreover, an upside-down cross is associated with evil. From Cross of St. Peter (a name given to an inverted cross):

      • It is also often associated with Satanism. Aleister Crowley believed this cross to be a symbol of inverted grace, or falling away from Christ's grace.

Therefore, not only is the image disrespectful but also misleading, as it alludes to Satanism, which is diametrically opposed to the principles of Christianity. Brisvegas 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so because some random Satanist claimed the symbol it's suddenly an evil symbol? You do realize the inverted cross is a symbol of St. Peter, right? He was said to have been crucified upside-down? I don't think one Satanist can take the symbol away from him like that. But this is all irrelevant, as we aren't discussing an inverted crucifix but a crucifix that is rotating through all four cardinal directions. It's no more Satanic than doing a wave with your fingers is flipping someone off. --Cyde Weys 17:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No encyclopedic value to this image, as far as I can tell. The major usage I am aware of was to mock or annoy other users, which is inappropriate behaviour for an admin. Delete and you'll have to find some other image to use in your userbox, Cyde. (I object to the use of the image, not because it is insulting to Christians, but because it was used to insult Wikipedians, and I do not, for the record, believe I personally own any part of any namespace... see my userpage for the disclaimer I place there explicitly disavowing any such notion. I cribbed it from someone that Gmaxwell might know fairly well...) ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we are really going to start deleting unencyclopedic images then I am all for that. But as it is right now there are thousands of images used wholly in userspace and it doesn't make sense to be discriminating against this one and not the others. And you need to back down off your high-horse and stop assuming that everything I do is evil. I sure as hell wasn't trying to offend people; the thought didn't even cross my mind when I was animating this. It's almost inconceivable to me that someone could find this offensive, but if they do, they simply don't have to look at it. Taking the incredibly low road of trying to delete this because of some people's fragile religious sensibilities is below the belt. --Cyde Weys 22:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure I'd delete every image not used in the encyclopedia, but I'm all for deleting images that are used only, or primarily, to insult others (as this one was, whether you agree or not). If you know of any other ones, I'll gladly support their deletion as well. I'm not sure that I follow where you get that I'm assuming "everything you do is evil"... but I am at a loss as to an explanation for some of your recent actions. That's not a high horse, nor is it holier than though, it's just confusion. I don't get it. ++Lar: t/c 00:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - not offensive (at least to this Christian) and not an orphan. Lots of images exist which are not currently used in the Main space. Guettarda 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, not for any perceived offensiveness, but for sheer unencyclopedicity. Most images used for fun on user pages are (or at least could be) also used seriously in articles. I can't imagine any encyclopedic use of this image. Angr (t • c) 18:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong and Speedy Delete - speedy as G3 - pure vandalism. This image was used to vandalize both the Template:User Christian and User Catholic templates. It has no imaginable use except for Vandalism. BigDT 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you really have no imagination, because it is now being used on user's pages who put it there themselves. That's not vandalism. --Cyde Weys 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Vandalism-only image. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's with all of the cries of vandalism today? Anything you disagree with you slander as vandalism to try and get it deleted? --Cyde Weys 16:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete This rubbish adds nothing to the project. Brisvegas 10:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Remember, IFD is not avote. An image offending somebody is not a WIKI reason for image deletion. For instance, we have the mohammed cartoons, even they being offensive to people. We have pictures of nudity even though they offend some people, and so on. So again an image being offensive to a group of people is no grounds for deletion for wikipedia. The image has also been called vandalism, but as the image is no longer used on templates, it certainly doesn't fall into the definition used on wikipedia (and I even dispute the original inclusin on thetemplate being vandalism) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not offensive, but quite encyclopedically useless (and the argument that we have lots of unencyclopedic images is pathetic). --Doc ask? 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete
  • Was created to specifically to annoy Wikipedians,
  • did annoy Wikipedians and
  • will continue to be used to annoy Wikipedians unless deleted.
At least one vandalism-only account has been used solely to harass people using this animation. Whether the image appals or amuses any particular person is irrelevant, because (as amply demonstrated by this and other discussion) lots of people do find it objectionable. (I myself am greatly offended by the crudity of the animation.) And because of that fact, retaining it means that it will continue to be used to annoy Wikipedians. CWC(talk) 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by nierto (notify). OR- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by The Funky One (notify). OR, UE, duplicitive.- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by The Funky One (notify). OR, UE, duplicitive.- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by The Funky One (notify). OR, UE, duplicitive.- — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Uploaded by Trifon_Triantafillidis (notify). OB replaced by SVG version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Number_sign.svg MeekMark 21:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Bbsrock (notify). From Rolling Stone, we don't regard images from magazine photo shoots as fair use. Arniep 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Thebogusman (notify). From Rolling Stone, we don't regard images from magazine photo shoots as fair use. Arniep 22:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by JOK3R (notify). Image is useless. I realized shortly after I uploaded it that my intentions for the picture were incorrect. Please delete a.s.a.p. --JOK3R 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_May_11&oldid=1082506805"