Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SlimVirgin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Don't be stupid.--Sean|Bla ck 20:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin

I know listing this here is rather irregular. I object to the use of fair use images on her userpage, and cannot remove them in concordance with the policy at Wikipedia:Fair use, as it is protected. Several people have brought it up with her, and one admin has removed them only to be rolled back. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting SlimVirgin's user page is clearly not the way to manage this. [[Sam Korn]] 12:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have to be bold here, and there is nothing else I have the power to do, as the page is protected. Deleting userboxes with copyvio images was the way for a member of ArbCom to manage it; why should it not be so here? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks by the way for commenting on her talk page - maybe my boldness will have positive effects. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it not still being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SlimVirgin_.26_fair_use_images_on_her_user_page? If so should it not be left be?-localzuk 12:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's been discussed, but nothing more. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But has a consensus on what should be done not be reached? At the moment I still see people thinking it is acceptable and some thinking it isn't. There is no obvious majority so would it not be more prudent to ensure that the guidelines are being broken before threatening a user with page deletion? -localzuk 12:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'm confused about is this: I can see it would be inappropriate to upload an image onto the site as fair use if it's only going to be used on a user page. But if it's fair use in one or more articles, what harm is caused, or what is violated (in terms of copyright law), by someone also using it on their user page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use only applies in each instance of an image. Theoretically, the image information pages contravene fair use. The image must be germane to the topic of the page. [[Sam Korn]] 12:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then are you going to delete the image information pages too? There is a real insanity to this situation (not meaning you, Sam, just the general hysteria around this subject), especially given that copyright law is highly complex, and a court ruling would be needed to determine how it applies to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would if it were technically possible. Wikipedia is now of such prominence that we must be careful with matters like copyright to preserve our image. [[Sam Korn]] 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use depends not on the image, but on the use. An album cover which is perfectly okay on an article about the album would be a copyright violation on a user page. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, I believe, is that the "fair use" in question generally means it is fair use for detailing the actual article, but not to be used for any reason not connected with the article. The rules seem fair in that respect, as the origin behind fair use is exactly that reason. But I'm voting keep regardless of my opinion on the matter, users should not be threatened with page deletion by anyone and this matter is being dicussed where it should be. Kel-nage 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two images in question. One has been released for promotional purposes and used to have a free licence, but someone changed it on the image page, so I've contacted some people who I hope will know what the real status of it is. With the second image, I have also e-mailed the closest person I know to the copyright holder (who may be the copright holder) to ask that it be released under a free licence, and I'm waiting for a response. Both images are also in use in articles, so my user page is not the only reason they're on the site. I didn't realize this was going to happen or I would have pursued the licence issue earlier and more vigorously. I've had nothing to do with the recent debates about the validity or otherwise of images on user pages, so I do wonder why my user page has been singled out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, and don't be a WP:DICK, SPUI. SlimVirgin is usually quite sensible, and I'm sure will respect whatever policy decisions fall out of the WP:AN/I discussion. I agree that 'fair use' images on user pages unecessarily complicate Wikipedia's legal situation, leaving aside the question of whether or not they are appropriate within our own policies. Given that the AN discussion started less than a day ago, I hardly see how SPUI should be shocked that a conclusion hasn't been reached. This nomination is just making a WP:POINT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've deleted the image tagged as fair use. I'd like to keep the other one until I can find out why it was changed from a free licence to "released for promotional use." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was originally tagged fair use, then no source, and then the uploader changed it to GFDL with no explanation. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I'm not even going to come up with a comment to this one (woops, too late). --D e ath phoenix 14:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I understand SPUI's consternation with how wikipolicy has broken down recently and how making a comparison like this apparently is the only way to make an example of how insane everyone's gotten. However, like SPUI probably thinks, deleting users who disagree with them is the ultimate goal of the Fair Use objectors from their behavior recently. Let's not let that happen. karmafist 15:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm astonished that after failing to gain consensus on AN/I, the nominator was inspired to think that this procedure would achieve it more readily. "Irregular" isn't in it. Palmiro | Talk 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and censure SPUI, this is clearly a bad faith nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.