Disagree with deletion Unfortunately when you license the image for free use, that's exactly what that means. Jews and Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses alike can freely print your image on their toilet paper if they wish. Every edit box says "Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.". The same goes for images as well. Reswobslc02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with deletion It is in the fair use forum. Perhaps you can take some sort of legal action, but until then, the image should stay, particularly when it is up for inclusion in the Commons. Bytebear03:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. You chose an irrevocable license when you uploaded the photo. People can use your photo for whatever they'd like, as long as it's not illegal for other reasons.... and calling the subjects "protesters" isn't libel by any stretch of the imagination anyways. Calliopejen119:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I removed the image and restored it to the Mormon Miracle Pageant article citing it as a NPOV violation due to it's slanderous use. ViperSnake15115:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The correct remedy seems to be ensuring that policies are properly followed in articles, not deleting the image. Per WP:BLP, a living person (e.g., Guðsþegn) should not have a label applied to him that he rejects, without strong reliable sources supporting the statement. --BlueMoonlet21:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP has nothing to do with this. BLP is not about avoiding terms people don't like or that they "reject", it's about including only verifiable information about living people. "Anti-Mormon" is a word Mormons use to describe any activity of protesting Mormonism outside Mormon temples, and per the photo that is clearly what they are doing. With all due respect, Guðsþegn should suck it up and take a chill pill - the usage of the photo is appropriate. Reswobslc20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP should be carefully considered anytime a living person feels they are unfairly characterized in WP. Guðsþegn is one of the people in the pic, in case that has not been stated explicitly enough. Why is this image currently included in a section entitled "Protests" rather than (for example) one entitled "Proselytization," which is what the people in the picture (according to the caption) were actually doing? Is it perhaps because proselytization is not considered anti-Mormon (after all, Mormons do it in the other direction)? --BlueMoonlet20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense should be considered when all the facts are in plain sight. This one looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck. I am not Mormon, and I consider Mormonism to be total BS, but I'm objective enough to know that unless Mormons routinely sit around other churches during their busiest events with brightly colored text (like "Repent!") boldly telling uninterested attendees that their ways are in error, your comparison is equally bogus. A true example of violating WP:BLP would be captioning this image with something like these two "homosexuals" or these two "child molesters". Stating the obvious about what's happening in the photo is most definitely not a violation. Reswobslc21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand correctly that you stipulate that proselytization by itself is not anti-Mormon? But you contend that the people in this picture were protesting, and that that is anti-Mormon? I want to be sure I understand your position before replying to it, so please correct me if I am mistaken. --BlueMoonlet23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've understood me well. In the vernacular of Mormons (the only real users of the phrase "anti-Mormon"), yes this is "anti-Mormon" behavior. The very fact that they're even standing in front of a Mormon temple wearing a custom printed shirt saying "Repent" at a well-attended prominent Mormon event is prima facie protesting in the opinion of those editing Anti-Mormon (and mine too) which is probably why the image was included in that article. If these people were engaging in the same activity in front of a 7-Eleven on a windy Tuesday in May I am sure it would be considered proselytizing by Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Reswobslc03:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) The POV of Mormons is not more important simply because the article in question concerns a term used by Mormons. I can imagine the people pictured here handing out leaflets to passers-by with a perfectly pleasant disposition, and talking to anyone interested enough to stop. It seems quite a stretch to call that protesting. And if it's not protesting, then (as you've conceded) it's not anti-Mormon. I still think WP:BLP is important here. We have the testimony of a person in the picture that he was not protesting. Absent any reliable source the the contrary, I think we have to believe him. --BlueMoonlet05:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of the above arguments, the photo in question is not of particularly high quality and doesn't do much to illustrate the point. It's a grip and grin portrait photo which can easily be removed without particularly damaging either article. There is already one photo of evangelicals preaching to LDS Church members which is a spontaneous, unposed and more illustrative image. FCYTravis05:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the photo because it is not of encyclopedic quality. It does not illustrate any particular point in general - instead what we have is a family photo of three smiling people lined up - you really can't tell what they're doing at all. This is not a good photo to use to illustrate the idea that there are people who attempt to convert Mormons. As mentioned above, a good-quality photo already exists, which includes clear anti-Mormon picket signs. We do not have to needlessly antagonize people. There's no reason to get all riled up about a photo which is unnecessary to begin with. FCYTravis07:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due sensitivity of the persons portrayed, I obviously don't agree with the deletion or the rationale given, especially since the image has a valid free license and is usable for other purposes. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOREVOKE are not reasons to delete images, plus, where's the consensus to delete? Reswobslc23:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find this action questionable. One delete trumps all the keeps? Not to mention that given the rucus over other images of questionable quailty have resulted in "keeps", this argument doesn't fly. The image should be reinstated immediately. Bytebear18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete fair use rationale. Image is a screenshot from a commercial computer game, but is not used on the article for said game -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk13:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree How does using an image from a video game for the intellectual property that the game is based on, especially when said property is still held by the owner of the game in question (Warhammer 40k table top), a violation of fair use rationale? Objulen 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment For the same reason that an album cover is allowed only to illustrate the album in question, and not the band! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply And that reason would be... what? A band's albums would be appropriate material in an article on the band. Objulen 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not quite correct. WP:FU#Acceptable images is relevant, the important point is whether or not the album is the subject of a critical commentary or not. So if an album is given it's own segment of a band's page then the cover can be used in that segment. Taemyr15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete fair use rationale. Image is a screenshot from a commercial computer game, but is not used on the article for said game -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk13:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree How does using an image from a video game for the intellectual property that the game is based on, especially when said property is still held by the owner of the game in question (Warhammer 40k table top), a violation of fair use rationale? Objulen 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment For the same reason that an album cover is allowed only to illustrate the album in question, and not the band! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply And that reason would be... what? A band's albums would be appropriate material in an article on the band. Objulen 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Image kept, for now. There's stronger consensus to keep this image, as opposed to the image above. But it's an orphaned fair use image, and I've tagged it as such. -- RG212:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete fair use rationale. Image is a screenshot from a commercial computer game, but is not used on the article for said game -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree How does using an image from a video game for the intellectual property that the game is based on, especially when said property is still held by the owner of the game in question (Warhammer 40k table top), a violation of fair use rationale? Objulen 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment For the same reason that an album cover is allowed only to illustrate the album in question, and not the band! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply And that reason would be... what? A band's albums would be appropriate material in an article on the band. Objulen 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Incomplete fair use rationale. Image is a screenshot from a commercial computer game, but is not used on the article for said game -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk13:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree How does using an image from a video game for the intellectual property that the game is based on, especially when said property is still held by the owner of the game in question (Warhammer 40k table top), a violation of fair use rationale? Objulen 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.42.183 (talk)
Comment For the same reason that an album cover is allowed only to illustrate the album in question, and not the band! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply And that reason would be... what? A band's albums would be appropriate material in an article on the band. Objulen 23:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Incomplete fair use rationale. Image is a screenshot from a commercial computer game, but is not used on the article for said game -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk13:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rationale has now been completed for the Dawn of War article, and is no longer present on the other articles. I guess I should withdraw my nomination.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with deletion The image is both used in the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War article and also contains a fair use rationale for said game. Just because it is used incorrectly in other articles does not mean the image itself should be deleted. XJDenton01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree How does using an image from a video game for the intellectual property that the game is based on, especially when said property is still held by the owner of the game in question (Warhammer 40k table top), a violation of fair use rationale? Objulen 06:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment For the same reason that an album cover is allowed only to illustrate the album in question, and not the band! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply And that reason would be... what? A band's albums would be appropriate material in an article on the band. Objulen 11:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use image kept after being nominated with th rfu template. That it ca be difficult to obtain a free image are not a good enough reason to keep the image. If we allow this image we would never get a free image of this band 80.202.107.4319:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know about the concept of "plenty" as there's one cc2 image and one with disputed public domain status. But nevertheless, each of them more than trumps this one, and therefore this needs to go. --lincalinca06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This image is also linked at William P. Gottlieb, the photographer who took it, and is currently the only example of his work. If an argument can be made that it is not necessary there either, I will consider changing my !vote. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://uk.games-workshop.com/spacemarines/miniature-gallery/images/sm-terminator-squad.gif){kind=link}
![[2]](http://uk.games-workshop.com/imperialguard/miniature-gallery/images/psyker-2.gif){kind=link}
