Uploaded by 98smithg2 (notify | contribs). UE. Only use was in an article which was speedily deleted under CSD A7. --bainer (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by 98smithg2 (notify | contribs). UE. Only use was in an article which was speedily deleted under CSD A7. --bainer (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by 98smithg2 (notify | contribs). UE. Only use was in an article which was speedily deleted under CSD A7. --bainer (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Marciooo (notify | contribs). Duplicate and possible copyvio. There is already a higher quality version in the article (Image:logo_smstar.gif), and it seems to be becoming a point of rv for no reason (there have been two reverts just to use the second image, which was just uploaded yesterday (9/1) by a brand new user, and unsourced as to its origin. MSJapan 14:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The purpose of this image is to illustrate the colors of light in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The colors in the .svg version are not true to the original. Rendering of spectral colors is tricky. If a vector version is to be prepared, it needs to be done more carefully.--Srleffler 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs). The current use of this Reuters image on Wikipedia is not transformative, it's used for the same purposes as Reuters used it, to illustrate a graveyard defiled. This looks like a textbook example of FU counterexample 5, "A photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo." The fair use rationale is "the photo is only being used for informational purposes", that's neither here nor there. No claim has been made that this is an iconic or historic photograph. Graffiti like this is reasonably common, it should be possible and not excessively difficult to produce a freely licenced picture that will serve as well for most or all purposes. The image is currently being used in seven articles and two article drafts. Haukur 16:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support since, sadly, we could get a free photograph of the vandalism. User:Zscout370(Return Fire) 19:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an image of one of the 100 graves that were desecrated at a Jewish cemetery near Strasbourg on October 31, 2004, the third such attack in six months. How do you suggest we obtain a freely licensed image from these attacks? SlimVirgin(talk) 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely that more people than this Reuters photographer captured the desecrations on camera. Some of these people might be willing to licence their photos under a free licence if we can find them (which, I admit, may be difficult). More importantly we don't really need to show a picture of these particular desecrations in Anti-Semitism, Hate crime, Swastika, Neo-Nazism, New anti-Semitism, Types of graffiti and Anti-Semitism around the World. A free picture of something similar should not be too hard to procure. Haukur 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Orbarion (notify | contribs). Very lickly copyvio, and I don't trust the PD-self tag looks like the work of an proffesianal photographer, user only upload and edit Jarandawat's sup 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]