Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 March 5

March 5

List of orphan images without copyright info and/or UE -- This group is from Dec 2005 MadCow257 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Screen2.jpg
Image:No-EU.png (talk,delete) - solely used for divisive user boxes. It shows disrespect for the people represented. {{user respect}} 13:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Come on, crossing something isn't divisive or disrespectful - it's just a way of showing your disapproval. User speedy-deleted pic yesterday, after calling usage of it "bad manners" on several usertalk-pages.[1][2][3]+many more Which I find much more divisive than this image. /AB-me (chit-chat) 14:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am no admin and cannot speedy delete anything. Someone else did that. Please show some respect for the people who feel represented by the flag. I did by asking users to remove it instead of just listing it for deletion without prior notice. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - crossing out a flag is not disrespectful - it illustrates the antithesis of the subject in simplistic terms. This image is a simple example of free speech - a fundemental right under the ECHR - whereby citizens are not obliged to support the state, nor are suppressed from dissent against the state. The deletion of this image would, IMO, be a denial of freedom of speech over a matter than is neither divisive or disrespectful. DJR (Talk) 16:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~ Keep ~~I can't think of a single encyclopedic use of this image, in fact, it isn't used in a single article.~~ What do you know, now it is. Prodego ^talk 16:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What's the problem?
  E 17:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Keep per AB-me, DJR. ROGNNTUDJUU!'s excessive nationalism (unionism?) and contempt for Wikipedian etiquette is far more divisive and harmful than the expression of one's own opinions on one's own talk page. Please also see my response to ROGNNTUDJUU!'s spamming on User talk:Lezek (I have also posted it to User talk:ROGNNTUDJUU!, but anticipate its removal). --Lezek 17:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per AB-me et al. I can't see any justification for this image to be deleted; its listing is solely for Eurofederalist reasons, and disrespects the views of those opposed to the EU. I can't imagine who would be offended by this image. TomPhil 20:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep not remotely offensive Boddah 23:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as I fail to see how it shows disrespect for the people it represents when people whom the flag represents are amongst those using it. - JVG 15:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as per AB-me. I have no objection to this or any other flag or symbol being crossed out. It is in no way offensive. -- thegreatloofa Brighouse ^(talk) 17:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not even remotely offensive. Opposition to the EU is a perfectly legitimate opinion. --Valentinian ^(talk) 13:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nomination is a violation of
  WP:POINT. Rogue 9 15:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Cryptic (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

*

~~WP:NPA) --Raphael1 19:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)~~ I withraw my deletion request, as I'm willing to accept a linkimage compromise. Raphael1 23:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

- - Well isn't that special - you're "willing to accept" a linkimage "compromise". Mighty white of you, there. Herostratus 08:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This kind of behaviour is just outrageous. Please, don't try to speak for every muslim in WP. --tasc 20:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, obviously. User doesn't understand
  WP:NPA, and also is unable/unwilling to comprehend Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Babajobu 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Keep as per Babajobu Varga Mila 20:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a personal attack. In-depth discussion of the controversy relating to these images is impossible without reference to the images themselves, per
  Wikipedia:Profanity. Those who are so easily offended by these images would do well to not go looking for them. --Lezek 20:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Keep - user who listed for deletion is upset that editors will not discuss the compromise suggestion to inline the image, but this is not grounds for trying to delete it. Johntex\^talk 20:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Babajobu. KimvdLinde 21:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, see above. Azate 21:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If we delete this image, we must therefore delete every image that religious groups have considered to be offensive throughout history, such as
  WP:NPOV. Though doing so would decrease server load, as a LOT of pictures would have to be deleted, it would also be absurd. - Jersyko·talk 21:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Keep per Babajobu. --Valentinian ^(talk) 13:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and do not inline. The day that Wikipedia subjects itself to religiously motivated censorship is the day that I quit. Postdlf 03:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.--Metros232 21:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
- Delete,
  E 22:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Comment: What is the policy for images that are uploaded for use on a single user page? While I agree these images have only been uploaded to make a point, they are very small and not particularly disruptive. The uploader uploaded them in the hope of offending those of us who have been using a similar image to express our distaste for the EU. He did not succeed in offending anyone; the only person childish enough to be offended by such images is the uploader himself. My feeling on the matter is therefore that I would rather allow the uploader to express his opinion, and that he will probably put these images up for deletion voluntarily sooner or later. --Lezek 23:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Part of the reason for the upload was to
  make a point, but the uploader also used these images to create Template:User respect. Deleting these flags (especially since the crossed-out EU flag is failing its IFD) might well needlessly escalate this controversy. Vslashg (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
- Strong keep as used for an important template. ROGNNTUDJUU! 01:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Misza13. RexNL 01:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Vslashg, my comments above --Lezek 11:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Vslashg, I don't find these offensive (I live in the UK) and they compliment the No-EU flag. -- thegreatloofa Brighouse ^(talk) 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]