Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 May 2

May 2

Image:Wikitendo.JPG, Image obsoleted by Image:Wikitendo.PNG--TBC☆^{O M G!} 01:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 280 or so images tagged as {{MEP image (EP)}} - unfree license. The license terms do not permit modification of the images. --Carnildo 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - so the licences do not explicitly permit modification - so what? The licences do permit use, which is what we're doing. I entirely agree if we can find a completely GDFL image, we should use it, but until then this is still much better than fair use, which we have endless quantities of.

Please note, in all cases I've seen these are images of European Parliament Members in articles devoted to the same. They are important articles, the pictures are very relevant to the articles, and would clearly meet fair use even if they weren't licensed at all. AnonEMouse 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, let me email the EP and see if they will allow incorporation into larger works, and modification. I suspect they mean to give a completely free license. But, again, even if they don't, these images are still much better than fair use. AnonEMouse 13:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In copyright law, everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. Since the license does not explicitly permit modification, copyright law prohibits modification. --Carnildo 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning that point - I asked you and you explained, quite well, thanks. Unless the license is clarified (which I asked about), they're not free images, I accept that. I'm merely opposing the deletion -- we have plenty of non-free images under fair use grounds that aren't being deleted. The use of these images under the licence is not completely free, but is even more than fair use. AnonEMouse 18:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, they are talking to me. Their response is at User:AnonEMouse/EU. I didn't think to save my request letter, unfortunately, but I thought it covered all the points in the standard template. If anyone has suggestions as to what exaclty I should say, please ut them on that talk page. If not, I'll do my best tomorrow. AnonEMouse 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - don't see what the problem is here - reproduction permission is given. While the licence isn't 100% free it is far better than fair use (of which WP has thousands of images, and is a "licence" that gets no permissions from anyone). If free licence versions can be found then they should replace, but if they can't then what is there is perfectly fine, WP isn't the commons. SFC9394 11:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Worshiphouseglass.jpg Orphan fair use image -Nv8200p talk 02:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mothermaria.jpg No source, Orphan -Nv8200p talk 02:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mae Beavers.jpg Orphan fair use image -Nv8200p talk 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, clearly used in Mae Beavers. --Rory096 03:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, It's evidently Mae Beavers. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 03:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's going to be kept, it needs a fair use rationale. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:PICT0417.JPG No source, Orphan -Nv8200p talk 02:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to commons; it says that the uploader created it in the {{GFDL-self}} tag. --Rory096 03:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:PICT0443.JPG Orphan -Nv8200p talk 03:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to commons. --Rory096 03:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cool guy josh.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Jjoknzx (notify). UE Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Illinois_SR_1.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Lpangelrob (notify). Obsoleted, I am the uploader. All variants of "Illinois SR X.jpg" have been replaced with "Illinois X.svg", actually... I was hoping there was a better way to delete all those images via this process. —Rob (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Higherself.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Deeptrivia (notify). I presume the misty bearded face hanging over the man, is supposed to be God. All Abrahamic religions strictly forbid pictures of God (or so one would expect, remember the Second Commandment), God is not some definable thing the physical features of which you can draw or even describe. A picture like this is therefore devoid of meaning. I don't think this is the place to criticise Christianity for not minding this Commandment, but in Islam images of God are simply unheard-of (not even pictures of the prophet Muhammad are "done", as has been pointed out amply recently). Rumi was a Muslim. Is there any reason why this picture would be all-right? Otherwise it should be removed; there are be plenty of nice pictures of Rumi on Wikipedia, and it could do without this blatant ignorance. Jacob 13:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moore.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Rainer21 (notify). Possible CV; no source listed, and Moore was not a Congresswoman when this picture was taken, so it's doubtful this could in any way be in the public domain. Plus, this image is replaced by Image:GwenMoore.jpg, her official Congressional photo which is in the public domain. Baron Larf 17:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anthony Wu.jpg (talk | Wu.jpg&action=delete delete)

Uploaded by BillyT (notify). OR Angr (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prom06027.jpg OR, UE. --Sherool (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roger Ebert.jpg (talk | Ebert.jpg&action=delete delete)

Uploaded by Plastic editor (notify). Already have two free images, no fair use. Arniep 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

image:German_Numena.jpg Album cover may belong to an unofficial bootleg release. Justin Foote 00:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]